Transatlantic Magazine Index Page

Remarks by Said T. Jawad, Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States

“Afghanistan: Where Do We Go From Here?”

Your Excellencies,

Friends from the media, academe,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you, Professor Guttman, for the kind introduction.

I am grateful to the Center on Politics and Foreign Relations of Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Affairs and the Financial Times for providing me the opportunity to discuss Afghanistan’s perspective with you this morning.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I welcome President Obama’s new focused strategy and new commitment to allocate more troops and resources to Afghanistan. We are especially grateful for the additional resources to build our security sector, as well as the capacity of the Afghan government to deliver services, and renewed attention to the agricultural sector. We appreciate the focus on protecting the Afghan population. We agree with the President that we must reverse the extremists’ momentum, deny the Taliban access to populated urban centers and work with Pakistan to destroy the Taliban’s safe havens, including those working against Afghanistan, the US and NATO forces in their territory.

The surge of troops is needed to provide us with the time and space to further build our own security forces. We are fully committed to do our part for the success of this new strategy. I personally admire President Obama for emphasizing that the United States was founded on the values of freedom, justice and human rights.

Let me begin by conveying my gratitude to the US and NATO soldiers, who are fighting in Afghanistan, and to those who are about to be deployed to Afghanistan. They are fighting to make Afghanistan, the region and the world a safer place for our children. We are very grateful to them.

Today, I would like to convey my position on some of the key issues being raised in connection with the new strategy.

1. We fully support President Obama’s plan to gradually hand over security responsibilities to our security forces. This is what we demand. Conditions permitting, the responsible drawdown of US combat troops may start in 18 months, if other security and regional factors remain unchanged. We are ready to take full responsibility of our country’s security in five years. This will be done in a province-by-province basis. We are already in charge of the most populated and important province – Kabul, where one-fifth of the population lives; and we are practically leading in a number of provinces in Central and North Afghanistan. Within the next three years, we will lead and fully conduct military operations independently.

We think that success is the best exit strategy. Afghans are seeking a long political partnership with the United States, and Afghans understand that defending Afghanistan is their primary duty. For an effective and smooth transfer, we want to establish a Joint Security Consultation Group with the US and NATO.

The Afghan National Army is fighting alongside your soldiers. There is no military operation now in Afghanistan where our troops are not partnering with your soldiers. On average, 3 Afghan National Police officers are dying every day defending Afghanistan. There is not a shortage of courage or manpower; there is a shortage of skills and equipment and funds to adequately pay and recruit better soldiers and police officers.

Your assistance in enhancing the training pace of the ANA (95,000) and the ANP (81,000) is needed. Out of 2,375 Police Mentor Teams, only 1,050 (44%) are assigned. Out of 2,663 embedded army training teams, only 1,125 (44%) are filled. Out of 103 Operation Military Liaison Teams (OMLET), only 53 are assigned (55%).

We appreciate that 20 NATO member-countries have shown willingness to send additional troops. We understand the constraints the rest of them are facing. If our NATO allies cannot send more troops and trainers, there are many other ways they can assist. An alternative is to pay the salaries of the ANA and ANP and to provide artillery, helicopters and transport aircrafts to our forces. We should seek a synergy between various degrees of commitment and capabilities that our NATO partners are bringing to the table.

Europe has been a viable partner in improving the quality of education and health care. Many Afghans speak German or French. Our NATO partners can set up extensive scholarship programs for Afghans to get trained in Europe so they may lead the new institutions that are being built in Afghanistan.

2. To enhance cooperation and further Afghanize security and development, planning is underway for 3 important international conferences, designed to find the proper mechanisms that will provide a gradual transfer of security responsibilities and increase the pace of economic development.

A conference in London in late January 2010 will focus on security issues. The Kabul conference will focus on developing two new sets of compacts. One between Afghanistan and our international partners and neighbors to set forth mutual expectations and responsibilities. A second compact between the Afghan Government and the Afghan people to recommit to government reform, improve governance and fight corruption. A third conference will possibly take place in Tokyo to focus on international aid, funding, reconstruction and development.

3. We heard very clearly your message about corruption and governance. We know that our government institutions are not fully functional. That is why you and 60 other countries are in Afghanistan. 41 of them have troops on the ground. We are grateful to every one of them. If state institutions were fully functioning, there would not have been state failure, the Taliban, and the Bonn Agreement, NATO and ISAF in Afghanistan.

Improving governance is our primary responsibility and we want to move quickly and decisively on key governance issues. We are finalizing a comprehensive roadmap to combat corruption. President Karzai has clearly stated that “individuals who are involved in corruption will have no place in the government.”

Over 600 officials were arrested this year and a dozen former and current ministers are under investigation. We have one of the best cabinets in the region and we are improving the quality of our governors and other officials.

The Afghan Government will fulfill its responsibilities to the Afghan people and the International Community through merit-based appointments at national and provincial levels.

Narcotics fund major corruptions. Targeting drug trafficking and drug barons is a cross-cutting priority in out anti-terrorist and anti-corruption strategies. To fight corruption, the country needs political will, adequate legal institutions and improved laws and procedures. The political will to punish corrupt officials is now much stronger. We are fully upgrading the capacity and mandate of the High Office of Oversight for the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for detection and investigation.

We are revising laws and improving regulations. For instance, the Constitution forbids nepotism but the penal code fails to stipulate a clear punishment for those who commit it. The Constitution calls for assets disclosure of public officials but there is no mechanism for penalizing those who lie or do not comply. We are changing these laws. We are building special tribunals to prosecute corrupt officials. The Afghan Government has recently broken a corruption ring at the Kabul airport worth tens of millions of dollars a year and the culprits will be prosecuted.

Corruption is a symptom of bad governance, not its cause. However, the challenges of good governance is not confined to bad governance, it is also due to weak governance and the absence of governance. We welcome President Obama’s civilian surge to strengthen our government capacity.

With all due respect for media’s constitutional right to choose unfairly and report irresponsibly, we should also listen to the people of Afghanistan. According to the Asia Foundation Survey, 36% of Afghan people think security is the biggest problem, 35% name unemployment and 17% name corruption. The order is very important. What the Afghan people demand is not only to eliminate corruption, but also provide them with security and jobs.

Furthermore, the perception here in the media does not always meet the reality in Afghanistan. According to the Asia Foundation Survey, 71% of people support the performance of the Afghan Government in the national level and 75% at the provincial level. 91% of people think that ANA is honest and fair, 83% have a very positive view of the ANP, despite its shortfall.

4. No Afghan corruption has infiltrated the spending of your funds and international aid money. We are ready to be fully accountable for funds spent through the “Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund.” However, the International Community has been slow to change their traditional means of delivering assistance. 80% of aid is delivered by donors directly, bypassing the Afghan Government. This must change. Over the next year we would like you to increase on-budget support in Afghanistan to 40% to support our national priorities.

5. Direct support for qualified Afghan institutions and officials is welcomed. We must focus on capacity development, rather than capacity replacement; on building institutions not creating parallel structures, undermining the Constitution and bypassing the Afghan Government. Fighting corruption cannot be accomplished by undermining the leadership in the country. Failure to partner with Afghans leads to failure. We need to work together.

We also expect from our partners greater transparency, mutual accountability, aid efficiencies and information-sharing. We should get most value of every development dollar that you spend in Afghanistan. We are seeking the establishment of a Joint Economic Cooperation Council to oversee and coordinate our efforts.

6. “Winning the hearts and minds” is not a sustainable strategy, it is a charity gesture. You need to further strengthen mutual trust and confidence by respecting the dignity of the Afghan people and government and assisting them to take charge of their destiny. The “Afghan Face” strategy is ineffective, we need the “Afghan Hands” strategy.

Reconciliation and reintegration. We welcome President Obama’s emphasis on the need for reconciliation and reintegration of the Taliban. This has been our policy since 2004. There must be one channel of conduit: the government institutions of Afghanistan. According to the Asia Foundation Survey, 71% of Afghans approves the Afghan Government’s reconciliation efforts with the Taliban.

7. “Why should our soldiers die for the Afghan Government?” is a question that I have been asked repeatedly. First, these heroic soldiers who are dying in Afghanistan are sacrificing their lives to preserve security and freedom throughout the world. You came to Afghanistan because you were attacked in your home by Al Qaeda, who was operating from bases in Afghanistan and whose stay was hosted by the Taliban. We appreciate that you are there and assisting us build our state institutions. The failure of the state in Afghanistan led to the formation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. You are not there to die for the Afghan Government. The Afghan Government, the Afghan army and police and, more importantly, the Afghan people are your partners.

8. Why are you in Afghanistan? The mission is clear. This is America’s war to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat Al Qaeda; and NATO’s battle for regional and global security, as well as Afghanistan’s struggle for survival. You are in Afghanistan primarily because of 9/11 and to prevent terrorist attacks on US and European soil. You are in the mountains of Afghanistan to defend the streets of the United States and Europe, to protect humanity from terror and tyranny and assist us in the process. Al Qaeda is under pressure and relies on the Taliban on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The benefits from a continuing US military presence in Afghanistan are mutual. Your engagement in Afghanistan is vital to US and Afghan security interests. One cannot separate security in Afghanistan from instability in Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation of 175 million people and the epicenter of international jihadists and extremists; and other neighbors with ambitions to acquire nuclear arms.

I know being in Afghanistan is dangerous. The fact is, aw we remember from history, not being in Afghanistan is far more dangerous. A setback in Afghanistan will embolden extremism regionally and globally and place violent extremists on the winning side of history. America’s historic strength is in the way you end wars and prevent conflicts, as President Obama said.

Security aside, your presence has fundamentally changed the lives of millions of Afghans. Your economic assistance alongside your soldiers’ sacrifices not only prevented another major terrorist attack here, but have also paved the way for millions of children to return to school, for our women to reclaim their basic human rights and for millions of refugees to, finally, return home.

9. What is success in Afghanistan? Success is protecting the US by stabilizing Afghanistan through building Afghan security forces to prevent the return of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and for Afghanistan to serve as your stable and reliable partner in a volatile region.

10. Why are we losing public support for the mission? Afghanistan is a tough mission. The precious lives of many Afghans, US and NATO member-countries are lost. There have been little effective efforts to explain the significance of this sacrifice and this mission for the safety and stability of Europe and the US. Leadership is about shaping public opinion, not following it. This is a tough decision we all should make. Joint efforts by the US and NATO are needed to turn the tide of negative media around.

11. Who is your partner in Afghanistan? Your real longstanding partner is the Afghan people. The Afghan Government is actively seeking continued partnership with the United States. The President of Afghanistan is your partner and he should be treated as such.

12. We are deepening our relations with Pakistan’s civilian government and military. We welcome a strategy to work on both sides of the border to target, with Pakistan’s support, the safe havens of high level terrorists whose location are known and whose intentions are clear.

13. Success is within reach. Our goals are modest and our mission so far is successful. For each setback in the past 8 years, substantial gains have been made in a number of unheralded areas. Working with the International Community, we have delivered basic health care to more than 85% of the country, primary education to 7 million children, 40% of who are girls, and domestic revenue collection has increased by 60% during the past 6 months alone.

14. We need your continued support and partnership to improve the lives of our people and to build on our shared accomplishments. 71% of Afghans approve of the performance of the Afghan Government. 63% of the people think that they are more prosperous. 42% think that Afghanistan is going to the right direction. 78% of the population agree that democracy is the best form of government in Afghanistan. 82% of people support gender equality.

We have come a long way. Today, we have a vibrant and free media, with hundreds of private radio and TV stations. Schools and health clinics have been built with your assistance in far-flung villages that had never had medical assistance before. Access to electricity increased from 8% to 62%. We are not out of the woods yet. President Obama’s attention on agriculture is very welcome.

15. Time matters. Together, we must act swiftly and decisively with mutual trust and respect to enable Afghanistan to stand on her own feet, and ultimately allow American and international troops to go home with deep gratitude of our people. The terrorist propaganda is questioning the International Community’s staying power and pushes the frustrated Afghan population to submit to terrorists and despair.

It is the time for all of us to act with perseverance and patience, and to stand together as partners for our just cause. We should join hands to strengthen a democratic, accountable and constitutional Afghan Government to improve governance and builds our security forces. We can jointly accomplish our mission of defeating terrorism, and making the world a better place for out children. Thank you.

CPFR Director Robert Guttman felt "the wins in Virginia and New Jersey by the Republican candidates in the governors' races were very much a referendum on the Obama administrations' policies especially their economic policies." Local and state issues were involved in both states but economic issues were the dominant issues on voters' minds in both states. It was also an anti-incumbent vote and historically both states in the past decade have voted against the party in the White House."

Election night in Virgina and New Jersey were victories for the Republicans and a wake-up call for the Democratic party that they need to re-think some of their policies especially with record high unemployment at the moment."

Guttman ended his talk with a brief preview of the 2010 congressional races and announced that his Center at SAIS will be holding breakfasts thoroughout 2010 looking at the key Senate, House and gubernatorial races.

More than 30 diplomats, journalists and students attended the CPFR breakfast analyzing the 2009 off year election results at Johns Hopkins on November 3, 2009.

Amid widespread surprise, consternation and some biting criticism, the leaders of the 27-nation European Union, meeting in behind-the scenes sessions in Brussels last Thursday, unanimously appointed a relatively unknown, low-key duo to the top EU jobs – Belgium’s Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council and Britain’s EU Trade Commisioner, Catherine Ashton, as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, posts created by the Treaty of Lisbon that goes into effect December 1.

Question: Do the appointments respond to the legendary comment attributed to the former U.S. Secretary of State who, in 1973 while trying to launch the Nixon Administration’s “Year of Europe” aimed at improving strained trans-Atlantic relations, mused that if he wanted to call Europe, notably the EU, what was the phone number?

The answer is yes; the incoming duo named Thursday does move the EU in the direction Kissinger was suggesting, but with a long way and difficult way to go. Kissinger, incidentally, unknown to many, admitted in an interview two years ago that he never recalled making the famous comment, but thought it so good he never denied making it, emphasizing, however, that times had changed and that the EU was moving “in a positive direction.”

Indeed, one of the candidates for the presidency and the only woman running- Latvia’s, outspoken, Atlanticist, former, center-right president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga – summed it up for many observers when she was asked if the EU would now be more operationally more efficient? Yes, she responded firmly, but would the EU now be more influential, visible on the world scene? “Not sure,” she replied.

Clearly, she, like many other leaders and observers, are asking: who are Van Rompuy (pronounced rum-pei) and Ashton? How will they perform?

It is a particularly tricky question, considering Ashton has never been elected to a political job, and has virtually no diplomatic experience. That already troubles many observers, considering that she will be responsible for running the EU’s expanding diplomatic corps, known as the European external action service, comprising 5000 persons, and some delegations in 130 countries.

In all fairness, she only learned she had the job as she was heading back to London from Brussels, had no prepared speech, and only commented that she would do her best and that she wanted to be judged on what she did once on the job starting December 1. Rompuy said even less, noting he had not really sought the presidency, and would always abide by the decisions of the EU member states.

Indeed, that brief comment confirmed his new role, running for two-and-a-half years and can be renewed once, and that he has nowhere near the powers of a U.S. or French president. France’s former President Valery Giscard D’Estaing, described the new role as that of “conciliateur,” in other words, being a consenus-building, mediating chairman of a large, disparate board, rather than a powerful, charismatic, presidential figure - the opposite of Giscard’s role model, America’s first president George Washington. Concluded Giscard, the key architect of the new EU constitution, the choices sadly reflect the minimalist, “average“ of prevailing leadership within the EU governance system.

Agreeing with that assessment, many observers also noted that the seemingly-starless duo reflects a long tradition of balance and compromise: Van Rompuy, the center-right leader from a small, traditionally EU-supportive nation, Belgium, and Ashton, a center-left leader from the EU’s major Eurosketpical nation, Britain.

That, in turn, reflects what at the end of last Thursday’s evening, was a major victory for Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. Both were fearful of being upstaged, and thus strongly, successfully and together opposed competing bids, such as Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s choice of his predecessor Tony Blair for the presidency, and former foreign ministers for the diplomatic post, notably Italy’s Massimo D’Alema, Germany’s Joshka Fischer and France’s Hubert Vedrine; by dinnertime they had successfully rallied other EU leaders behind the duo.

So who are the two new leaders? And, who it should be noted, will be sharing executive powers with the President of the influential European Commission, whose members are also being replaced, meaning – regarding Kissinger’s question – there will still be at least three phone numbers for calling the EU, not counting the European Parliament.

With his self-depreciating sense of humor, described by colleagues as being down-to-earth; pragmatic, reassuring to colleagues; a writer of Japanese haiku verse, who spent his last vacation crossing Australia in a camping van, and has been described by some who know him as “a modest dandy,” Van Rompuy, 62, is, above all, a highly-skilled negotiator and hardened, consensus-building Belgian politician.

For decades, he been a major figure in the nation’s Flemish Christian Democratic Party, having held key posts such as budget and then deputy prime minister. He is multilingual, trained at an early age by Jesuits; later studied philosophy and economics, and has played a key role in negotiating the currently, relatively-stable relationship between the traditionally-opposed Flemish and French-speaking regions of Belgium. A top Belgian journalist worried Sunday that his departure would be “disaster” for Belgium, though his experience and skills will help enormously in the new job.

And despite biting comments by some critics that he may not be up to the job, as someone like Tony Blair might have been, Belgium’s former former EU vice president and trade commissioner, Etienne Davignon, who knows him well, said that Van Rompuy is no “docile poodle.” Another admiring colleague said Rompuy “always thinks before he speaks.” And yet, few if any observers and officials contacted, can say what his views are on the the EU and its future, since they have never been expressed publically; many believe he is a “federalist,” meaning, presumably, a strong role for Europe in internal and foreign affairs. He has opposed Turkey’s EU membership, but has already stated he will abide by what EU member states eventually decide.

Ashton, 53, whose full name is Baroness Ashton of Upholland, a title bestowed by virtue of her previous position as member, and later as Labour Party leader, in the unelected House of Lords, earlier headed a regional health authority, among other posts, including junior ministerial jobs covering education and justice. During her roughly one-year stint as EU trade commissioner, she helped conclude a free-trade agreement with South Korea, and, as part of her job, will be a Commission vice president. But there is little else in her background that provide hints regarding how she might perform. “Judge me on what I do, and I think you will be pleased and proud of me,” she told reporters when informed of her appointment. Undoubtedly, more will be known about her when she is questioned in detail at confirmation hearings of the European Parliament.

How will the new EU leaders relate to the Obama administration? Though congratulatory messages were sent, there were no direct, friendly phone calls acknowledged publically; understandable, given that the duo are unknown in Washington, except to astute EU watchers, including a handful in the White House and the State Department. As Giscard noted in an interview with the French daily Le Monde: “the fact that President Obama seems, until now, little concerned by European questions constitutes an opportunity” to create a truly influential “European space” which should, in turn, lead to a closer, improved trans-Atlantic relationship.

Given that the EU already speaks with a strong, single voice in the areas of trade, competition and monetary policy, the difficult, controversial question remains: will the EU ever develop a powerful, credible foreign and security policy? A global , influential EU policy may yet emerge under the Lisbon Treaty. Yet one cannot help recalling the prophesy of the 18th century French jurist and political philosopher, Charles Montesquieu, whose thinking helped shape the U.S. Constitution: “Europe is a state composed of many provinces, but it is not amenable to the creation of a unified empire.”

A Letter to a Key Obama Advisor on Europe

By Axel Krause, Contributing Editor, TransAtlantic Magazine

October 16, 2009

Earlier this week, France’s highly-respected daily Le Monde carried a front-page interview with Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Euroasian Affairs. Creating a stir in influential circles on this side of the Atlantic. Its headline declared that, disappointingly, Washington calls on Europe to “share responsibilities” in world affairs, and display “solidarity” regarding the administration’s approach to Afghanistan and Iran.

Gordon, who spent a decade as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and has written extensively on U.S.-European relations, brushed off what Le Monde’s experienced Washington correspondent, Corine Lesnes, described as Europe’s growing “deception” with the administration’s foreign policy. He cited the “incredible” popularity of President Barack Obama, notably in Central Europe, and that cooperation with Europe had never been so good, amid debate over strains and differences he described as “healthy.”

The following letter attempts to respond to some of the views expressed in the interview and provide some thoughts, a suggestion and to explain why I believe my French colleague correctly reflected much of the current thinking on this side of the Atlantic.

Interview with HUBERT VEDRINE

By Axel Krause, Contributing Editor, TransAtlantic Magazine

Considering Europeans who might best respond to questions regarding President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and related issues, ranging from Afghanistan to the Middle East, we quickly decided on “France’s Kissinger” – Hubert Védrine.

In the introduction to his admired book, published by the Brookings Institution two years ago, “History Strikes Back,”former U.S. Secretary of State (1997-2001) Madeleine Albright, wrote that “conversing with Védrine was like kayaking down a fast-flowing river. There was enough movement to demand concentration, enough excitement to keep spirits high, and enough danger to prevent complacency…he was my favorite diplomat with whom to disagree.”

We first met in the early 1980s when he was serving recently-elected Socialist President Francois Mitterrand as a top foreign relations adviser. He rose to become the Elysée Palace spokesman, chief of staff, and Foreign Affairs Minister from 1997 to 2001 – always brilliant, concise, somewhat aloof, witty, and open to discussing issues when time was available.

Today, at 62, he continues to write, lecture and consult, gently brushing off often-made comparisons with both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, saying they are flattering, and that he admires both men greatly.

Our interview took place earlier this month in his right-bank Paris offices, overlooking the Seine, and was conducted in French.

In your 2007 book on history, you predicted that if Americans did not overcome their excessive pride, arrogance (hubris) we face repeated global catastrophes. What is your view today, in light of the election of President Obama?

First, I believe that Westerners as a whole, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, were caught in illusions, based on their sense of triumph. I do not believe they saw emerging the multipolar world, continuing to believe they were the center of the world. They remain its most powerful and richest (bloc) notably the United States. But it (the U.S.) isn’t anymore, hence the G20. After presidents George Bush (senior) and Clinton came the policy of Bush (junior) which I at the time considered the most absurd and counterproductive foreign policy in American history, hence the reference to hubris. By contrast, absolutely extraordinary is that Americans, so capable of rebounding, elected Obama, not because he is black and energetic, but also an intellectual.

But what does the change mean in terms of foreign policy?

The change from Bush (W.)to Obama is simply gigantic, potentially. Because of his (Obama’s) background and intellectual capacity…and his full understanding of the outside world and, specifically the worsening, critical relations between the West and Islam. He rightly believes this cannot be put off. He also isn’t interested in talking only to leaders, but to public opinions, which is a magnificent surprise, extraordinarily intelligent and useful, but also difficult.

Obama has made Iran a top priority, insisting on diplomacy and dialogue as the way forward. What is your reaction to assessments, including from President Sarkozy, that this approach is not working, concluding that “severe” economic sanctions are now needed?

In the past, the West has made important mistakes in dealing with Iran. Prior to Obama, for example, the United States, since 1979, has boycotted and sanctioned Iran, with no effect…in political terms. And that’s where we are today. President Bush himself did not dare take up the military option (against Iran) even though it was supported by members of his administration, lobbies and parts of the Israeli government. Tougher sanctions were proposed as well several times, but it was clear that we had reached the limits of what the Russians and Chinese could accept, so tougher sanctions would, in effect, be those of the West, not of the international community. Those currently criticizing Obama, without saying so openly, favor a return to the earlier Bush policy.

What about Obama’s diplomatic approach to the Near East, Iran, Afghanistan, and Islam in general?

It bothers a great number of people, though opinions in Europe and the United States have on the whole been supportive. There is no denying that Obama proved very intelligent in trying something else and it is clearly much too early to criticize; he is not adopting a new approach (with regard to the Islamic world) out of generosity, but adopting a tactic, a broader strategy. Indeed, his policy of the hand reaching out has already had its effects on a regime that panicked at his proposition, while bringing out differences within Iran. The Europeans, starting with France and Germany, who were unbelievably cowardly with regard to Bush, should now show courage, and support Obama’s stance.

That issue, among others, will be discussed at the G20 summit planned for September 24-25. Is this the appropriate forum for such discussions? If not, what approach would you suggest. And, more broadly, on what should the G20 focus its attention?

In international, legal terms, the only legitimate place for such discussions (regardng tougher sanctions) is the Security Council of the United Nations. In political terms, it is not inappropriate to discuss within the G20. This is not a world government, and there are differences within, but, in any case, there is no choice. Little by little, this is where issues of this kind and others, will emerge, illustrating that the Western nations can no longer govern alone, faced with global issues. So with regard to Iran, the question is: do we have a Western policy, or one that is international? And if the latter, it is necessary to find a compromise with (G20 members) the Russians, Chinese, Arabs and Indians.

Meantime, looking ahead, what roles do you see for such other established international institutions, as the G8, IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the OECD, and NATO. Should they be reformed and if so, how?

First, the importance of the G8 will diminish, remaining a place of intermediate rendezvous of, for example, finance ministers. The only country with significant interest in the G8 is Russia…countries (like Russia) generally prefer a restricted framework, on the condition they are included. Regarding the organizations (mentioned) of the (post World War II) Bretton Woods system, they are not all challenged by what is happening. Changes might have been suggested earlier, but were not because we, the West, assumed we were predominant, that it was not worth the effort. Perhaps the G20 will address new,emerging issues, such as the environment. The broad, evolving participation in it could make more acceptable broadening participation in the United Nations, in the Security Council.

And NATO?

NATO is a separate issue…I thought that France’s change in policy (fully integrating its military command structure) was completely useless, that France’s traditional position bothered no one. It is inexact to claim that France will have greater influence (in NATO) and that its integration will improve movement to a European defense system. Thus, if U.S. policy with regard to Europe is good, acceptable, fine; if it is not, we will be in a difficult spot. It is clear that with regard to Afghanistan, for example, there was absolutely no (trans-Atlantic) strategic concertation.

So how would you describe the current, international architecture?

Baroque. In the sense that several systems are operating at the same time. But within it is the reality of power that counts. The architecture is but the dressed-up framework, and is not all that clear. And it will be shifting in time, meaning the system has become one of networks, rather than architecture, that more or less functions effectively.

Assuming the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by Ireland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland, what changes do you forsee for European Union’s role as a major force in the world, U.S., Russia and Asia? What are the prerequisites for succeeding?

First, if the Lisbon is ratified it will be important for it will end some 15 years of institutional controversy, providing stability that will endure…in my view there will no treaty afterward. All the questions that have been at the core of our problems for some 50 years, such as the institutional power configurations at national and European levels, will have been settled. Thus enabling the Europeans to concentrate their energy on projects and policy. Will Lisbon be enough to change mentalities? I do not think so. Europeans are not ready for Europe to emerge as a major power in a multipolar world, with (its own) financial resources, willing to take risks, confronting China, Russia and others if deemed necessary. The treaty will not change that.

What would?

The touching off of a trigger mechanism (déclic) involving a strategic agreement between France, Germany and Great Britain…formulating positions on key questions, such as policies with regard to Russia, China, energy. There are signs of this amid preparations for the G20 meeting. (To be held in Pittsburgh Septeber 24-25)

In light of what you just said about France with regard to NATO, how does that organization fit your overall assessment?

This (an EU defense policy) regretfully is a complete illusion. Unless perhaps Europeans were able to create a single, European defense industry. What provided the impetus for European (Union) construction? It wasn’t the founding fathers, (Robert) Schuman and (Jean) Monet, but Stalin and Truman…Monet never thought of creating a European power, being completely Atlanticist. Thus, I think we need to accept what Jacques Delors (former president of the European Commission) envisioned long ago as the ultimate outcome – a European federation of nation states. Once Europeans realize that European construction does not threaten their identities, they will be much more positive.

How would you assess the present state of French-U.S. relations, compared to the period in which you were Minister of Foreign Affairs?

During the period I served, in the period of (President Bill) Clinton, relations were good, both with the governments of (Jacques) Chirac and (Lionel) Jospin. This was the period of Albright and me. Relations with the Bush administration were difficult, right from the start. We did not share the same concepts and approach to methods. Nevertheless, there was a large degree of solidarity after September 11 and, in the beginning, cooperation regarding Afghanistan, and then came the break over the war in Iraq; and I believe that, with hindsight, Chirac and (then Prime Minister Dominique) de Villepin were right, and then as time passed, relations improved somewhat, because of the combined efforts of Chirac and (President George W.) Bush.

Then what after (Nicolas) Sarkozy was elected president?

In the beginning, and wrongly in my view, Sarkozy aligned himself with the conceptions of Bush, enormously, at a time when the entire world knew that Bush was mistaken (regarding Iraq) and then came the enthusiastic widely-admired election of Obama. That created a certain, bizarre uneasiness on the French (Sarkozy) team, because they were too close to Bush. Obama knows this. Secondly, Obama is not that interested in Europe, having no special reason to be, and has far more urgent problems to deal with…on issues such as dealing with Iran. This will evolve, and perhaps lead to better French-U.S. relations via the G20, but this is not the case today: some high-level French officials still refer to Obama as naïve. I believe this is a mistake.

Back in the days of President John F. Kennedy, and President Bush’s father, admirers of Monet and (France’s President Francois) Mitterrand, respectively, there were prominent “Europeans” highly-placed at White House, such as JFK’s Undersecretary of State, George Ball. Does their notable absence around Obama matter?

This is not the problem. With the end of the Soviet Union, Europe was no longer a stake. As President of the United States, you have other priorities…Obama was elected for (dealing with) the crisis, which therefore concerns China. He has had to re-build a different relationship with Russia, less so with Europe, so there is absolutely no reason for him to single out Europe, no doubt concluding that if the Europeans remain divided, too bad for them; if they are united, with common positions, so much the better.

What is your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, in light of growing threats of military failure there, contrasted with optimistic predictions for winning the Obama-supported war by American commanders? Was Europe right in hesitating or refusing to commit more forces? Are there other choices?

Obama was elected with a position that involved saying he was not against wars, but idiotic wars. This led to his opposing the war in Iraq and calling for doing more in Afghanistan, while never disassociating himself from his partners.Yet he announced his new policy for Afghanistan before coming to Europe, prior to the NATO summit, alone. There was no declaration of a war council, a joint military command, nor debate in NATO involving those countries present in Afghanistan. America decided. Thus, I believe the Europeans were right in refusing (to significantly increase their military involvement) and yet, should have been much clearer in the beginning, declaring full support for Obama, but urging that decisions should be taken together, as others, not just Westerners, have stakes…Arabs, Indians, the Chinese, the Russians.

What security-related solution to you suggest?

Basically, a more limited approach, declaring that we will remain there for our own security. Needed is a mobile, rapid-intervention security force in the region. It would react and crush terrorist forces constituted in the area, in tribal areas, extending to Central Asia. And Afghans would take care of Afghanistan. Concentrating on security and vigilence. Otherwise, we won’t succeed. Soft power (non-military reconstruction and modernization) cannot be ignored, but will not resolve the problem. Our security is the only reason for our being there. I do not support a withdrawal.

At the White House August 18, Obama, declared during the visit of Egypt’s President Mubarak, that a solution for resolving the Israel-Palestinian settlements question was moving in “the right direction,” and that a “positive” climate had emerged. What, in your view, will it take to restart a Middle East peace process?

In light of the Israeli electoral system, it is an absolutely impossible situation for (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu. Thus to settle the problem, (of moving toward a solution) it is necessary to end the deadlock involving the right-conservatives (political configuration) of Israel. The confrontration between those who accept the idea of Palestinian state and those opposed has been going on for thirty years. For American policy to surmount this obstacle, it would mean having another (parliamentary) majority to support Netanyahu, or he falls, in order to have a united government. If America is not prepared (to work for a change in Israeli leadership) or it won’t work out, we’re talking needlessly, and nothing will happen. If, however, you had a combination of Obama and (former, assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak) Rabin, you could be assured it (a credible, dynamic Middle East peace process) would work. But history has taught us that we rarely, if ever, (in such situations) have the right combination of leadership.

Will We Ever Learn?

By Ting Xu, Senior Project Manager, Global Project, Bertelsmann Foundation

Economists and governmental officials have begun to announce the end of the global financial crisis as equity markets grab hold of any positive economic data to push stocks higher. World leaders are breathing a sigh of relief. As the immediate trepidation subsides, however, a return to the dark days of last autumn remains a concern. Calls for financial-sector reform betray the fear that the origins of the crisis lurk in the shadows, ready to re-emerge for that dreaded second downward stroke of a W-shaped recovery. The upcoming G20 summit in Pittsburgh, at which such reform ranks high on the agenda, reflects this fear. Good thing, too, because the lessons of this most recent crisis have not been learned.

This stubbornness and thick-headedness is not new. Lessons from other recent financial crises, such as those that struck Mexico in 1994 and Asia a mere three years later provided us with opportunities to correct the errors that haunt us today. Yet major financial crises occur with frightening regularity. Why can’t we heed the warnings? One obstacle is that the pain from recent crises subsided before we implemented reform. Once the fear recedes, we quickly return to our old, nasty habits.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) once tried to overcome the inertia. In 1999, finance ministers of its member states reached a common position on reforming the international financial architecture. They called for greater involvement and participation of emerging economies in international financial forums; protecting the most vulnerable segments of society; greater regulation, transparency and disclosure requirements for “large market participants”, such as “highly leveraged institutions [that] have systemic significance”; and greater transparency in the rating process.

In 2001, the UN’s G-24, the only formal grouping of developing countries within international financial institutions, took a similar position. It warned that financial crises “had their roots in the liberalization of the financial sector prior to establishing an efficient framework of regulation and supervision, excessive borrowing and lending by private agents and the inability and unwillingness of key players - including governments - to accurately assess risks.”

The current financial crisis shows that ASEAN’s and the G-24’s warnings were ignored. Instead, financial markets continued to operate under euphemistically sounding “principle based regulation”. The goal was to provide flexible regulation to facilitate innovation and manage sophisticated changes in financial institutions. But such regulation was in reality deregulation, with few legal tools and an insufficient number of qualified officials to oversee it. As a result, the global economy was nearly brought to its knees by exactly that which ASEAN and the G-24 wanted to avoid: highly leveraged, large financial institutions taking excessive risks with the help of dysfunctional rating agencies.

If the record so far is bleak, the future has little better to offer. A second G-24 caveat is now also going unheeded. The organization has warned that “if private-sector creditors are bailed out through official assistance without bearing any cost of the crisis, their habitual poor lending and reckless investment decisions will not be rectified.” This is exactly what is occurring today. The foundation for the next financial crisis is already being laid.

In another distressing sign, neither ASEAN nor the G-24 can claim much success for their efforts to reform international financial institutions such as the IMF. Little progress has been made in boosting these institutions’ legitimacy by providing better representation for the developing world or by reforming the functions of their executive boards or by strengthening managerial responsibility and independence. Even recent proposals by IMF staff to enhance the role of countries on the periphery of the organization’s decision-making processes evaporated after they were introduced to the Fund’s executive board.

The appetite for reform of the international financial system receded considerably after economic recovery in 1995. We cannot afford to let that happen again. The G20 must insist on fundamental financial-system reform and take bold steps in that direction, especially if signs of recovery are appearing. The next crisis may already be on its way. The global economy barely averted catastrophe last year; we’re unlikely to be so lucky next time.

For Germany’s CDU: It’s the Economy, Stupid! And It Needs to Be…

By Tyson Barker, Bertelsmann Foundation

The most recent GDP growth numbers for Germany for the second quarter of 2009 provide welcome news for the senior partner in the German government. The unexpected 0.3% GDP growth places Germany (with France) at the heart of a boon-let for Europe, a potentially quick recovery from what has been touted as the worst recession since the 1930s.

Buoyed by these numbers, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her CDU colleagues could be charting course for a heavy election win on the back of a vindicated economic policy following the crash of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. The CDU is weaving a narrative that seems to have all the trappings of electoral gold: a steady, resolute leader (Merkel), a dashing, patrician economic steward (Economics Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg) and a headwind of public opinion support.

The capstone of this election strategy will be Merkel’s visit to the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh on September 24-25, just two days before the German elections (September 27). Already the stage is being set for the G20 to be the climactic final stop on the campaign trail. In the American industrial city, she will roll out Germany’s vision for a “Global Charter for Sustainable Economic Governance.” She returned from Russia where she won the support of President Dmitri Medvedev for the initiative.

Merkel and the CDU are blessed to have this year’s SPD as an opponent. In an election climate that is becoming increasingly personality-driven, Frank-Walter Steinmeier – because of his role as German foreign minister—has not been associated with the economic policies of Berlin’s Grand Coalition. The SPD’s economic proposal has also failed to provide a boost to the party’s campaign. The so-called Deutschland Plan has the ambitious goal of creating four million jobs by 2020, a proposal that would lead to full employment in Germany. But the plan relies on vague statements about creating jobs in the so-called “creative sector” and in healthcare (an element that has been derided in the press as essentially proposing to turn the country into a national nursing home).

If support continues to harden for the so-called Mini-Mehrheit coalition of Merkel’s CDU and the Liberal Free Democrats, it is time to for the Chancellor and her team to begin addressing how they plan on keeping Germany’s house is in order before they talk about essentially globalizing the German social market economy.

Here are four places to start:

Create a long-term plan to boost German domestic demand: The elephant in the room for fixing the imbalances of the German economy has long been domestic consumption. The €5 billion cash-for-clunkers scheme, part of the German stimulus package was obviously a good start and has become a model for other many other industrialized countries, in particular the United States. But this and other measures taken recently could prove too Keynesian to be true. It’s time to create sustainable incentives for domestic consumption across sectors, and this means cuts in VAT, among other things.

Prepare for tail-end increases in unemployment: The Kurzarbeit solution provided an enormous cushion to the German employment market by allowing employers to maintain workers while cutting back on production. The doubling of the Eurozone trade surplus in June has provided some solace to those who believe that a return to export-led growth is possible. But expected global shifts in demand, particularly in the United States could leave markets with less of an appetite for German goods. Combined with the traditional lag in unemployment raises, Germany will probably exercise some increase in unemployment levels in the next year. The German government must communicate this to its public and withstand calls from the opposition and some interest groups to take measures that would curb competitiveness and make long-term job creation elusive.

Pay attention to the solvency of German banks and credit in the system: The issue of solvency and liquidity is still a big one in Germany. The trade surplus-driven German economy invested large sums of its surplus capital in the footloose mortgage-backed security, CDO and other derivative markets of the US. This left the German banking sector more exposed to the US-led downturn than almost any other nation’s banking sector (China’s financial markets were still relatively decoupled from the financial alchemy that led to the current crisis). Corporate debt in Europe is over 100% of 2009 GDP; in the US, that number stands at less than 50%. While German business is not the worst culprit, some companies in the Mittelstand, the small and medium enterprises that are the backbone of the German economy, could witness difficulty borrowing under newly tightened lending requirements of German banks, particularly in early 2010.

Encourage investment in tomorrow’s industries: Germany ranked 25th overall on the latest World Bank Doing Business Report’s “ease of doing business” index. The United States ranked third. Germany’s rank for protecting investors gives some insight into the investor climate that exists in Europe’s largest economy. Here, Germany ranks 88th, tied with countries such as Russia, Bosnia, Kenya and Tanzania. Without engaging in a sort of investment protectionism that traps capital at home, Germany needs to work on creating a favorable investment climate that encourages job creation in industries in which Germany has a comparative advantage. Green industries, such as solar and wind energy and electricity-saving smart-grid technology, would be great areas in which to start. Beyond that, Germany should encourage EU-level projects such as the Desertec Program, which will diversify the continent’s energy supply, promote increased use of renewable energy, and encourage the development of this growing sector.

Even as the German government begins planning to stride onto the world stage with its visionary Global Economic Charter, it must be mindful of these four challenges. As German Bundesbank President Axel Weber warned this week, it’s still too soon to declare that Germany and Europe are out of the woods. The German social-market model is a unique hybrid that balances growth and productivity with social protection. But as the Export Weltmeister and its leaders should know, something has to work before it can be exported.

New Europe takes lead in the EU

Martyna Korkiewicz

July 15, 2009

In a historic vote on Tuesday, July 14 Jerzy Buzek, the former Prime Minister of Poland, was elected the President of the European Parliament. Mr. Buzek is the first President to come from the group of Central and Eastern European country which joined the European Union only five years ago.

The vote itself was largely symbolic as traditionally the two biggest parties in the European Parliament reach an agreement before the first session of the newly elected parliament. Mr. Buzek, a member of the party with the most seats - the European People’s Party, will act as the President for 2.5 years and then Martin Schulz, a member of the Party of European Socialists, is likely to serve till the end of the term of the current Parliament. This year, winning the EPP’s nomination turned out to be the biggest challenge as not only the former Polish Prime Minister expressed interest in the position – current Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini was also a serious candidate for a long time but will finally have to settle probably for the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The President presides over the debate and represents the body internationally. The European Parliament is the main legislative body of the EU, however, it does not have the power to initiate legislation and proposed laws also have to be co-approved by the European Council. The Lisbon Treaty, which is currently undergoing the process of ratification by member states, will strengthen the role of the Parliament, especially with regard to budgetary process and by giving it the power to directly elect the President of the EU Commission. The Treaty would also create a new position - the President of the European Union. The British government has already announced that former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be their candidate for the job, despite the fact that the Treaty still needs to be ratified by Ireland in a referendum scheduled for October 2, signed by the Presidents of the Czech Republic and Poland and some adjustments in the German law also have to be made by the Bundestag.

Mr. Buzek emphasized the need for ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as the only way that the EU can manage. In his acceptance speech, he said that his election proves that there are no more divisions between ‘us’ and ‘you’ in Europe. Comparisons to the fall of the Berlin Wall were also drawn by the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso and the leader of the European socialists Martin Schulz. Mr. Buzek – elected on the French national holiday of July 14 - also made references to the ideals of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ championed by the French Revolution that are still ‘ringing out in the European Union’. As his main priorities, he listed fighting unemployment, providing energy security, dealing with climate change, supporting women’s issues as well as a strategic partnership with the US and the emerging global powers. During a press conference, when asked about EU-Russian relations Mr. Buzek stated that the differences on human and civil rights must not be forgotten. However, he also emphasized that ‘the EU needs Russia and Russia needs the EU’.

The elections to the European Parliament took place on June 4-7, 2009. Almost half of the current Members of the European Parliament are new to the institution. The executive branch of the EU - the European Commission – is also starting a new term this year. The national governments of the member states have indicated that they would like to see José Manuel Barroso re-elected as the President of the European Commission but due to opposition from the leaders of the Socialists, Liberals and Greens the European Parliament decided to postpone the confirmation vote until September.

OBAMA’S THIRD OVERSEAS TRIP – MIXED RESULTS

July 13, 2009

Axel Krause

With President Barack Obama back in Washington, some sensitive, awkward questions remain about his high-profile July 6-11 trip that took him and his family to Russia, Italy and Africa, his third overseas trip since entering the White House: How did the Russians, the G-8-plus countries, and Africa react? What next? Does the European Union fit in?

From the start, Obama’s visit to Moscow, the first stop in two-day talks with top Russian leaders presented the most daunting challenges, and deep scepticism about what he might accomplish. Even though the White House, with no illusions, had said repeatedly that the presidential goal was mainly to press the “reset button” with a view to normalizing tricky, tense U.S.-Russian relations.

On that front, the Moscow visit was a success, as both sides proudly proclaimed afterward, as the New York Times headlined, a “new era of rapprochement” was underway. True, President Dmitri Medvedev and Obama agreed on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, cutting roughly a third of their stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons

And to Washington’s satisfaction, the Russians agreed to open an air corridor for the transit of U.S. troops and equipment bound for Afghanistan. But major conflicts between the two powers remained unresolved, such as sanctioning Iran’s nuclear development; the U.S.-sponsored, anti- missile shield aimed eastward, furthering democracy and protecting the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbors.

No single meeting proved more difficult and tense for Obama than his breakfast with Vladimir Putin, though it ran longer than scheduled, his first with the powerful, Russian prime minister, described later as “vigorous.” And although Obama described Medvedev as “straightforward and professional,” he admitted the Putin meeting was anything but a success. “I found him to be tough, smart, shrewd, very unsentimental, very pragmatic. And on areas where we disagree, like Georgia, I don’t anticipate a meeting of the minds anytime soon.”

The same could be said of the U.S. leader’s contact with the Russian public, which by tough, government media controls, amid cool, cynical indifference among average Russians regarding official visits by Western leaders, virtually eliminated any enthusiastic, popular Obamania; certainly of the kind he encountered on earlier trips to Germany, France, the Middle East and which surfaced immediately as he and his family arrived in Africa several days later. Obama’s speech at Moscow’s New Economic School was carried live by only one cable television channel, with limited reach, as one student, reflecting much, respectful opinion in the audience, told Britan’s Economist: “I take what he said on board, but I am not going to jump to a conclusion.”

But then Obama wasn’t running for president of Russia, but addressing key, international issues, hoping, striving for solutions as he headed for the July 8-10 G-8 summit meeting near the Italian city of L’Aquila. The summit was hosted by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, coping with a soap operatic sex scandal, economic woes at home, amid widespread calls for restructuring or eliminating the G-8; not a bad idea, considering that this 35th gathering drew some 40 other leaders from around the world, including Brazil, China, India and Egypt.

As an NGO leader from South Africa summed it up for the New York Times: “The G-8 is an elite cocktail, a self-appointed groups…I think it is an anachronism and consistently undermining the work of other multilateral initiatives.” Indeed, with Obama’s support and that of other leaders, the shift in summitry power has shifted to the wider, G-20 group of developed and developing nations from around the globe, that will be continuing its deliberations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, hosted by Obama, scheduled for September 24-25.

While Obama scored some points at the G-8 summit, notably in supporting the reduction of global warming pollution, it was no howling success, as other leaders crowded into the limelight, amid strong disagreements and tensions.

Thus, while European, notably French and German leaders claimed the U.S. commitment was far too vague on the dates when reductions on emissions reductions should begin, the Russians blocked any further sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment program. Even though Medvedev had told Obama in Moscow that he shared the view that Iran’s military-related nuclear development was of great concern; in L’Aquila, the Russians claimed they had successfully watered down the G-8 statement, as France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy warned that if there is “no progress (on launching nuclear-related negotiations with Iran) by then (the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh) we will have to take decisions,” meaning on tougher sanctions.

And while agreeing with Sarkozy at his press conference as the G-8 meeting ended, Obama indicated that he fully supported a re-thinking of the way in which it and other international bodies operate, to reflect the past three decades of global change in all areas and perhaps, he added, to organize “fewer summit meetings.”

Meanwhile on the image front, a smiling and composed presidential couple met with Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican amid enthusiastic crowds outside, mainly Romans, which made for upbeat and favorable publicity.

Similarly trying hard in L’Aquila, the former model and wife of the French president, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, an Italian and no admirer of Berlusconi, deliberately and openly refused to join the other wives of the G-8 leaders in touristy Rome visits. Instead, she stayed put, visiting the victims and sites of an earthquake that in April killed nearly 300 residents of the G-8 city that left 65,000 homeless.

But it backfired, judging by the Berlusconi-controlled Italian media, even though she announced she would contribute 50,000 euros of her own money for the rebuilding of a damaged hospital. Yet no journalist covering the Obama trip would have dared say about Michelle Obama what Il Giornale, a Berlusconi daily, wrote about the French president’s wife: “Madame Sarkozy deserted, shamelessly” what the G-8 host had planned, and “someone should tell her that snobbery (of this kind) to the powers that be in this country is called - boorishness.”

For the Obamas, on their last day, the 24-hour stopover in Ghana, Africa, was the most spectacular success of the trip, highlighted by a series of sweeping, lofty statements and exhortations about Africa by Obama, linking American aid to widespread reform; emphasizing that “Africa’s future is up to Africans” in a spirit of tough love, as he pledged that “America will be with you very step of the way, as a partner as a friend.”

On the streets of Ghana’s capital, Accra, he was greeted by large, often electrified audiences, even though the White House wanted to keep the visit relatively low-key. For example, as the New York Times’ Peter Baker covering the trip reported, “at a breakfast with dignitaries, Mr. Obama made his way down the center aisle with (Ghana’s) President John Atta Mills, while a reggae artist, Blakk Rasta, crooned in the background – “Barack, Barack, Barack Obama.” Later at the parliament, legislators chanted slogans from the president’s campaign last year.

Amid admiring, applauding crowds, photographers and television crews filming, the presidential family visited Cape Coast Castle, a fortified fort in Ghana from which African slaves were shipped to centuries ago, Obama, his wife and their two daughters, projected a powerful image – and not just about the outrageous enslavement of the blacks. Recalling his earlier visit in June to the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany, also reflecting “pure evil,” Obama said that “as painful as it is, I think it helps to teach us all that we have to do what we can to fight against the kinds of evils that, sadly, still exist in our world.”

Thus, similar to his two earlier visits, this one, too, produced mixed results – some successes, some failures, and breaking even on other questions. But there is little doubt that in the weeks and months ahead, there will be followup from the President – trying to engage the Russians on Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East; working closely with France, Germany and Britain on reducing pollution and halting global warming and perhaps enlisting their support for the war in Afghanistan, despite mounting European casualties and intensifying, emotionally-charged debate, particularly in Britain and Germany about whether they shouldn’t pull their troops out as the bodies of young soldiers in their twenties were brought back home for burial, amid wide news coverage during most of the weekend..

Leaving aside these three U.S.allied nations, the 27-nation European Union, was absent from the discussions, and widely perceived as a non-player in world events, but this could change. Commenting on the main issues raised during the Obama visit, Javier Solana, the EU’s top foreign and security-policy official, concedes that “not everything is perfect” regarding the EU’s global role…either Europe works together, or we become strategically irrelevant.”

Delivering the annual lecture to the Ditchley Foundation in Britain, he stressed that “the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty would be a significant step forward…we need solidarity, yet should not re-create at the level of the European Union what does not really work at the national level.” In other words, even if the Lisbon treaty, enhancing EU powers, is finally ratified by Ireland in October, the EU is still striving to become a global player, with a long way to go.

US reigns supreme: A unique nomination process

July 6, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

The selection of the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States is a highly public process which can dominate the news cycle for months before it formally begins. However, the American public is pretty unique in terms of its interest in the judicial branch. In other countries the Supreme Court nominees not only get much less attention (and scrutiny) from the public but the process also rarely involves both legislative and executive branches of government.

First of all, in civil law systems based on Roman law – which dominate in continental Europe - it is rare to have the competences of the highest court of appeal and the power of constitutional review accumulated in one institution. For example in France there are five different ‘highest’ appellate courts, depending on the nature of the case. The Council of State deals with administrative matters but there is a separate Constitutional Council which focuses on constitutional challenges. Cour de cassation hears civil and criminal cases (which probably makes it most similar to the US Supreme Court) but there is also a High Court that specifically deals with judging the President in cases of treason. In Germany, the system is even more complex as separate supreme courts handle different areas of law such as labor, social or tax law. As the number of highest court judges increases, their relative influence on the legal and political system of the states diminishes. Therefore it is hardly surprising that much of the European public is vastly oblivious of the names of the justices, not to mention their ideological positions, judicial history or the miniscule details of nomination process.

However, even in common law jurisdictions, where the court can leave a considerably larger imprint on the state of the law, the level of scrutiny (exercised by both the public and different participants in the political process) is minimal compared to the United States. In the United Kingdom, Supreme Court as such was only established by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 and is about to assume its duties this October. It will be the highest court of appeals for three legal system co-existing in the UK: English and Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish (except for criminal cases). It will also rule on matters of devolution but as Britain has no written constitution, the Supreme Court will not exercise the power of constitutional interpretation as it is the case in the US. The role of the Supreme Court in the UK used to be performed by as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as well as the twelve law lords in the House of Lords who will now become the first justices.

In other countries where the Supreme Court has broad powers similar to its American counterpart the nomination process is still usually much more straightforward and largely conducted behind closed doors. For example in Ireland, the judges are chosen by the President with the advice of the government and an independent judicial advisory board. In Australia, the appointments are in practice made by the Prime Minister on advice from Attorney General of Australia and attorney generals of particular states – although officially it is the Governor-General, the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, who makes the nominations for the High Court of Australia. In Canada it is also the Governor General who appoints the justices based on the opinion issued by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

The Supreme Court of the United States is a unique institution in terms of the broad powers it has and a great amount of independence it enjoys. The justices are nominated for life, which is not the usual practice around the world. They decide on the most basic rights and liberties of the American people based on a Constitution written more than 200 years ago and one that provides ample room for interpretation too. A change to the right-left or conservative-liberal balance on the bench can influence issues such as abortion, gay rights, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, religious freedoms as well as the results of a presidential election. The politicians and the media scrutinize the nominees’ private and professional history to a degree that should make the outcome of the nomination process and the future rulings of a justice totally predictable (although that is not always the case as the story of now retiring Justice Souter proves). Yet the American public remains much more disconnected from the process than it might seem. According to a poll conducted days before the hearings for Sonia Sotomayor began 62% of respondents did not have an opinion of the nominee and that still represents higher levels of awareness than in the past. However, I do not think in that any other country anyone even bothers to poll the public opinion on their Supreme Court nominees – it is difficult to poll something that is virtually non-existent.

The G8 and the 2009 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy

July 6, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

The 35th G8 Summit is about to take place in Italy from July 8th to 10th, 2009. It will be the first G8 meeting attended by President Barack Obama. The Summit will constitute a part of the fifth major international trip for the president. Visits to Russia and Ghana are also on his itinerary. In preparations for the Summit Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi visited Washington, DC on Monday, June 15. President Obama praised Italy for their engagement in Afghanistan and willingness to accept some of the Guantanamo detainees.

What is the G8 Summit?

G8 stands for the Group of Eight meaning the eight main industrialized countries who meet annually to discuss major economic and political issues. It is not an international organization but rather a series of summits that take place every year. The first meeting was held in 1975 at Rambouillet in France with six countries attending: France, UK, U.S., Italy, Germany and Japan. Canada joined the group in 1976 and Russia became a member in 1997. During the 2008 presidential campaign Senator John McCain suggested excluding the Russian Federation from the G8 because of the infringements on political freedoms in the country but Obama rejected the idea pointing to the need for cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation.

At the summits, countries are represented by their respective Heads of State (in the case of the U.S., Russia and France) or Heads of Government (in the case of the UK, Japan, Italy, Germany and Canada). The European Community (now called the European Union) began attending the G8 summits in 1977 and nowadays is represented by the President of the European Commission and the Head of State or Government of the member state holding the EU presidency at the time. However, the European Union is not a full member hence it does not chair or host meetings.

The G8 presidency is assumed by a different member state each year. It rotates in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. The state that holds the presidency not only hosts the annual summit and ministerial meetings preceding it. The host country is also responsible for defining the agenda, speaking on behalf of the G8 and holding talks with other countries, international organizations and civil society. In preparations for the meeting the host country is assisted by sherpas – personal representatives of the leaders of each member state (the term comes from the name for Himalayan climbing guides).

The stories from the past

Italy has previously hosted four summits, two of them while Silvio Berlusconi was the Prime Minister. The first and second Italian summits were held in Venice in 1980 and 1987. The third one took place in Naples in 1994 and it was the first summit in which Russia participated as an observer. Finally, the most recent Summit in Genoa was held in 2001. It was marred by an escalation of anti-capitalist protests and it shocked the public when one of the demonstrators was fatally shot by the police. The 2005 Summit in Gleneagles (Scotland) will also be remembered as one of the most tragic – British Prime Minister Tony Blair was forced to leave the meeting as the London Underground and bus bombings occurred on July 7. It has been suggested that the terrorists took advantage of the fact that a large part of the British police and security forces was deployed to Scotland to protect the participants of the summit. As part of heightened security efforts, when the G8 meetings are hosted in one of the EU member states, the Schengen Treaty is usually suspended for an extended period of time before and right after a summit (this year from June 28 to July 15). It means that border control is restored between the host country and the neighboring states and travelers are required to present their passport or government issued ID

G8 Summit 2009 – how did we get from a Mediterranean resort to police barracks?

The 2009 Summit was originally planned to take place in the Maddalena archipelago (off the northeast coast of Sardinia). However, after the tragic earthquake struck L’Aquila on April 6, 2009 Prime Minister Berlusconi decided to move the summit to the region of Abruzzo as part of his commitment to the reconstruction efforts. The meeting of the Heads of State and Government will take place from July 8 to 10, 2009. The previous summits were known for their lavishness and usually took place in scenic locations with top-notch facilities. This year however, because of the last minute relocation to a disaster-stricken area the conditions will be much more modest. The meetings will be hosted at the Guardia di Finanza Non-Commissioned Officers’ School rather than a five-star hotel or a historic palace. The venue has already been inspected by the foreign delegations of participating countries including the U.S. and the American delegates were ‘pleasantly surprised‘ by the facilities. Nonetheless, in the spirit of solidarity with the victims of the earthquake as well as in the times of financial crisis and increased environmental concerns it is unlikely that the world leaders will choose more comfortable accommodation in Rome (or other neighboring city) and decide to commute daily.

Who’s all coming?

The G8 countries will be represented by: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Canada), President Nicolas Sarkozy (France), Chancellor Angela Merkel (Germany), Prime Minister Taro Aso (Japan), Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Prime Minister Gordon Brown (UK), President Dmitriy Medvedev (Russia) and President Barack Obama (US). José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President will represent the EU.

So what’s the point? The Italian wishlist

The Italian presidency has outlined a five-point plan of the issues the summit will try to address. Firstly, the need to make the G8 more representative and more efficient has been recognized. This can be achieved through continued involvement of the emerging economies: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa as well as Egypt representing the Arab, Muslim and African world. This initiative was started in 2007 during the German presidency and is known as the Heiligendamm Dialogue Process. The Italian presidency has also actively sought Iran’s participation in the Foreign Ministers Meeting preceding the Summit but the invitation was declined. As violence ensued after the contested and controversial electoral victory of President Ahmadinejad was announced, on June 26 the G8 issued a statement urging the violence to cease and calling for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

Secondly, Italian officials want to focus on bringing the global institutions closer to people by fostering a new global governance. These goals are to be achieved through a reform of the international institutions (especially the Bretton Woods system) and boosting the cooperation between the G8 and the G20 economic forum. Discussion of the International Monetary Fund structures and policies is also expected as the organization has started to play a greater role in times of economic downturn. Not only did the U.S. Congress recently agree to appropriate $108 billion for the line of credit to the IMF (which President Obama promised to the world during the G20 Summit in London back in April) but the institution was also charged with preparing ‘an exit strategy’ once the crisis is over. This basically means that the IMF is to decide the shape of the economy and ways of generating wealth for the future generations.

The third aim of the summit is a review of the legal and ethical standards governing the transparency, propriety and integrity of international economic and financial activities. This topic emerged mainly as a result of the global financial crisis but Prime Minister Berlusconi stressed on numerous occasions that he would also like to include the emerging economies in the debate.

The fourth focal point of the L’Aquila meeting will be development in Africa, specifically financial mechanisms designed to facilitate greater private investment on the continent.

Finally, the fifth project discussed at the summit will be the global partnership for farming and food security. It will involve fostering coordination between the existing organizations and the bodies involved in the fight against hunger and poverty as well as a search for innovative solutions to support small-scale producers, social security networks and general investments in this field.

The one item that seems blatantly missing from the agenda is the environment, especially in view of the upcoming UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. In preparations for this hopefully groundbreaking event, at the initiative of the United States Major Economies Forum was launched in 2007 and the first preparatory session of the Forum took place at the US Department of State in April 2009. However, given the state of the world economy and the fact that the developing countries were hit by the crisis particularly badly, expectations towards progress in that field might have to be lowered.

Swedes are 'taking on the challenge'

July 1, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

On July 1, 2009 Sweden officially assumed the Presidency of the European Union. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt emphasized climate change and the economic crisis as two main challenges that his government will try to address while coordinating the efforts of all 27 EU member states. The European Commission visited Stockholm on Wednesday to mark a new chapter in the history of the EU. The Commission President José Manuel Barroso once again underscored the importance of the main issues on the Swedish agenda and pointed to Sweden as an inspiration to many European values such as social justice, solidarity, human rights or accountability and transparency. Mr. Reinfeldt's government will also have to focus on internal issues such as the institutional reform of the EU and the pending ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The expectations are high, especially after a less than successful just finished Czech Presidency during which the government of Prime Minister Mirek Topólanek collapsed.

The European Union represents 27 countries which account for almost half a billion people and the world's largest economy. The EU Presidency rotates among member states every six months. The institution of the presidency will be abolished if the Lisbon Treaty (currently in the process of ratification) comes into effect.

'Taking on the challenge' is the motto the Swedish Presidency which will last until January 1, 2010 when Spain is due to take over.

Martyna Korkiewicz is a native of Poland who spent the last three years studying politics in the UK and the US.

Letter from Belfast:
Northern Ireland: A different outlet for the same emotion?

Leanne Cochrane, June 30, 2009

The latest development in a spate of racist attacks on Romanian families living in Belfast, is the broken windows of City Church, the local church that housed the 100 Romanian on the night of June 16 after they left their residence in the lower Lisburn Road area of South Belfast citing intimidation and fear of further attacks. Although the incidents have not yet been linked, the current climate presupposes a corollary between the two episodes. Furthermore, Northern Ireland’s Social Development minister Margaret Ritchie told the local press that 25 Romanian victims had left the province with 75 more stating they would follow. All flights are being funded by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

Despite the affable character for which many of the locals are known, Belfast has never been heralded as a pillar of inclusion, something attributed to the debate surrounding its constitutional status. Rather politely put? Yes. Northern Ireland’s ‘troubled’ period that witnessed deep divisions between Nationalists and Unionists descended into bigotry and sectarianism in their purest forms creating a pollution in the otherwise fresh Irish air. However, in mindless violence and unjustifiable hatreds Northern Ireland was never alone in the world and definitely not in Europe. Yet, past aside, for whilst the old warfare has by no means disappeared (a survey conducted by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland published results this week indicating that religious prejudice is approximately the same as three years ago, not to mention the soldier shootings in March of this year) it is just recently and on the back of the racist attacks that some have suggested Northern Ireland is the ‘European capital of hate’ and its people may just be ‘addicted’.

First of all, it is worth remembering that the media does by default exaggerate the reality. The news is by its very nature something ‘new’ or extra-ordinary. While other racist attacks on minority communities has been noted in Northern Ireland throughout the past years, including this weeks’ attack on a Polish residence in Dungannon, it remains outside the norm. Indeed, the Romanian attacks led to an outcry among the local community, many gathering for an anti-racism demonstration on the very day the Romanians left their home in South Belfast. Further condemnation was expressed when both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister requested a meeting with and made apologies to the Romanian Ambassador. In one bemusing incident, a leading loyalist paramilitary leader landed at the Leisure Centre being used to house the Romanians after their night in the church, offering his help only to be turned away.

So what triggered the violence? That the men charged both with the Romanian attacks and the church violence are between 15 and 21 years old could suggest this upsurge is the work of troubled youths. Or perhaps less generously, youths with a cancerous patriotism – Some analysts have suggested tensions had not really died after the Northern Ireland vs. Poland World Cup Qualifing football match at the nearby stadium three months prior. Then there is the aforementioned assertion that the people of Northern Ireland, more so than their European counterparts, tend towards racism. Though sectarianism has not exactly left a vacuum, the ‘chuckle brothers’ era of First and Deputy First Ministers trumping Northern Ireland’s attributes together has emerged, albeit tenuous. According to the Equality Commission Chief Commissioner “patterns of behaviour from one context can be transferred to another”. The Commission’s survey stated that 51% of people questioned would find it objectionable if a member of the travelling community moved in to the neighbouring house. This is an increase from 38% in a 2005 survey and the most obvious prejudice in the survey. 23% of people in the same survey objected to a migrant worker living next door and the same number to a homosexual person.

These figures do imply that the racist sentiment does not stem from a few misguided youths but has infiltrated the broader community. Yet, I would argue, it is a sentiment growing not just in Northern Ireland but in the UK and other Western European countries generally. The recent BBC drama ‘Moving On’ featured English actress Sheila Hancock marrying the Nepalese character of Bhasker Patel, only to be met by the same community grumbles. It is the sentiment that ‘they are taking our jobs’ which may reasonably be thought to be spurred on by the catalyst of recession.

Beyond mindless violence the cause of the recent racist attacks is far beyond the reasoning of this article. Most likely, as with all forms of violence, they are a result of a complicated medley of factors. Whatever else can be said, the constant foundation of misplaced identity is as always in Northern Ireland one of the keys.

Leanne Cochrane is an attorney in Belfast who worked at Johns Hopkins SAIS last year.

Willkommen, Chancellor Merkel!

June 29, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a warm welcome at the White House last Friday. President Obama not only greeted her in German, stated that he ‘liked her a lot’ but also admitted to having a warm spot for Germany in his heart. All this came after numerous speculations in the media about the strained relationship between the two countries and the personal differences between the low-profile leadership style of Ms. Merkel and Mr. Obama who enjoys a celebrity status not only in his own country but pretty much worldwide.

President Obama emphasized that Germany is one of the closest allies of the U.S. and complimented the efforts undertaken by Chancellor Merkel’s administration in fighting against climate change as well as her commitment to financial markets reform. The Middle-Eastern peace process and the situation in Iran were also discussed and the leaders assured that Germany and the U.S. are speaking with one voice on those issues. Chancellor Merkel also expressed hope for improved relations between Russia and America, an issue which is of particular interest to Germany and on which President Obama solicited advice from Ms. Merkel. Finally, Chancellor Merkel reaffirmed that Germany is not going to shirk its responsibility in terms of accepting Guantanamo detainees after calling for closing the prison but no specific commitments have been made (or asked for by the U.S.). The German Ministry of the Interior is still looking into the matter and its ramifications in view of the German law.

The visit precedes Mr. Obama’s upcoming trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana at the beginning of next month.

German Chancellor Merkel Visits President Obama

June 23, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is preparing for her visit to the U.S. this week June 25-26. The expectations are high as Ms. Merkel is said have declined previous invitations to the White House since President Obama took office in January. Topics likely to be covered during the meeting are mainly related to the upcoming G8 Summit and to broader issues of global concern such as nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and climate change. The situation in the Middle East and the current developments in Iran are also likely to feature prominently in the discussion.

The relationship between the German Chancellor and the new American administration was subject to a difficult start as Ms. Merkel refused to substantially increase Germany’s engagement in Afghanistan or to accept the Guantanamo detainees, despite having called for a closing of the prison numerous times. During the recent financial crisis, Germany put a lot of blame on the U.S. banking policies and in turn the American government officials expressed their disappointment with a slow and very limited response to the financial breakdown on the part of Ms. Merkel’s administration. The German Chancellor has also recently taken a much stronger stance on the Iranian elections than President Obama, publicly demanding a recount and stating that ‘Germany is on the side of the Iranian people’. Chancellor Merkel is up for re-election in the upcoming federal elections this September.

President Obama has visited Germany twice since assuming office. During his trip to Dresden earlier this month he described the relationship between Germany and the U.S. and their respective governments as ‘outstanding’.

Elections to the European Parliament
June 11, 2009
Martyna Korkiewicz

With record-low turnout of 43%, citizens of the European Union chose their representatives to the European Parliament in the biggest trans-national elections ever that took place on June 4-7 2009. The overall distribution of seats between the major parties will not change much. The center-right European People’s Party and European Democrats are predicted to retain the plurality and to hold 264 out of 736 seats. The election can be considered a defeat of the left as the share of seats held by the Party of European Socialists decreased by almost 6 percentage points. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is the only coalition to increase their share of seats in the new parliament, with all the other parties experiencing slight losses and a higher number of MEPs (currently estimated at 93) who are predicted to be independent.
In many countries the elections were viewed as a test for the governing parties. Results from the UK confirmed that the Labour government is in deep trouble as the party came third even under the traditionally two-party system in Britain, beaten by the eurosceptic Independence Party. David Cameron, leader of the victorious Conservatives has yet again called for general elections saying that the government led by Gordon Brown has lost the trust of the British public. The far-right British National Party also managed to win seats which will bring to the European Parliament two of its leaders: Andrew Brons and Nick Griffins, both of whom were associated with neo-fascist movements and now they openly admit their goal it ‘to bring the EU to an end’.
In Italy, People of Freedom, the party of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi managed to come first but fell short of the expected sweeping success. The allegations of an affair with an 18-year-old lingerie model over which Berlusconi’s wife decided to file for divorce certainly did not help the Italian Prime Minister who was already struggling to convince the voters that he could handle the economy in crisis. Publication of the photos from his villa on Sardinia which featured topless models (as well as a naked former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek) was just a final blow. Even the fact that the Berlusconi himself was on the ballot in all five electoral regions of Italy (he is not planning on actually taking his seat) did not deliver the overwhelming success he hoped for.
In France and Germany the governing coalitions managed to win the elections. This is especially good news for Angela Merkel’s Christina Democrats in view of the upcoming federal elections in September in Germany. President Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) also won, mainly at the cost of the factionalized left-wing opposition.
The European elections would be far less interesting if not for a couple of celebrities and other ‘famous’ (or infamous) individuals whose well-known names are supposed to grab voters’ attention in this extremely low-information election. In his effort to freshen up the image of his party, Prime Minister Berlusconi included on his list Barbara Matera, a former Miss Italia contestant. Romanian President Traian Basescu did not manage to convince the members of his own party to put his daughter Elena on the ballot so she ran as an independent and still managed to get a mandate. In Sweden, the Pirate Party also succeeded in winning a seat – contrary to what one might expect, they are more concerned with copyright and patent law than recent events off the Somali coast. In Lithuania, Alfred Rubik, a former First Secretary of the Latvian Communist Party, previously imprisoned for trying to overthrow the country’s first democratic government will also take his seat in Brussels in about a month – his party Harmony won 20 percent of the votes.
Finally, some extreme parties on the right also successfully made their way to the European Parliament which proved how disillusioned voters in Europe are with the mainstream politics. The BNP from the UK will be joined by members of such parties as the Hungarian Jobbik known for expressing their anti-Semitic and anti-Roma sentiments, the ultra-nationalist Slovak National Party and the Party of Freedom which came second in the Netherlands and has a long record of anti-Islamic rhetoric.
The European elections could be considered a success of the center-right. However, given the bad shape of the European left and the unexpected gains of Green parties, the far-right and other out of the mainstream groups, it is a very moderate success at best. Most Europeans might have given their governments another chance but the examples of the UK or Spain, where the current majority parties were defeated, also prove that in the times of crisis the patience of the voters is very limited and the ruling coalitions should not start to feel too comfortable in their seats.

Martyna Korkiewicz is a native of Poland who spent the last three years studying politics in the UK and the US.

OBAMA’S OVERSEAS TRIP – ADMIRING LEADERS, CROWDS, BUT OBSTACLES REMAIN

June 9, 2009

Axel Krause

Just before leaving Washington for last week’s whirlwind visit - to Riyadh, Cairo, Dresden, Buchenwald, Landstuhl, Caen, the Normandy beaches and Paris – President Barack Obama told the New York Times’Tom Friedman that he and his administration would persist and “just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working…you (the leaders he was to meet) are all going to have to make some tough decisions.”

In varying ways with different rhetoric and historical references at each stop during the four days, amid the cheering crowds, with American flags flying, Obama eloquently delivered on the messages – urging the Muslim world and Israel to work with the U.S. for peace in the Middle East, while repeating his call for nuclear disarmament; indicating the need for support for the war in Afghanistan, and closer, visionary, democratically-inspired cooperation with his administration regarding the Middle East, notably including Israel, and the 27-nation European Union, notably Germany and France.

In his lofty, historical, yet hard-hitting approach to audiences, Obama was also delivering a major, realistic challenge, including to radical, traditionally anti-American regimes such as the Iranian government, and the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah political parties - to cooperate with his administration or face isolation in confronting what he described in his speech at the U.S. cemetery overlooking the D-Day Omaha Beach, as the world’s new challenges.

A sanguine senior French official commented: “We are going to have a difficult time playing with Obama…he successfully defends the interests of his country, and it is our duty to do the same.” He was alluding to Obama’s overwhelming sense of new, determined U.S. leadership in the world, and continuing differences between Paris, Berlin and Washington over enhancing EU military support for the war in Afghanistan; bringing Turkey into the E.U. as a full-fledged member and France’s hosting a Middle East peace conference soon, an idea being pursued by France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, but which the Obama administration considers premature.

Indeed, the initial reactions to Obama’s idealistic, powerful, widely-reported Cairo speech, marked by repeated applause by the some 3000 officials, diplomats, students, academics, and religious leaders, including Christians and Jews, in the university hall, were decidedly mixed. Palestinians and other Arabs, responding to reporters’ questions, said they were moved, flattered by his knowledge and informed references to Islam and his strong commitment to promoting peace and a two-state solution. Israelis, while pleased and relieved at his strong support for their state and continuing friendly relations, expressed suspicion, and fears about how this might play out in the months ahead, notably in light of his repeated insistance that Israel freeze West Bank settlement expansion.

Much informed, balanced Arab opinion was summed up by Rami Khouri, editor of Lebanon’s English-language paper, The Daily Star, and director of a public policy think tank at the American University of Beirut: “He (Obama) sought a new beginning which we badly need. So let’s now put away the Bible and Koran classes (some of the religious references in Obama’s Cairo speech) and get down to the tough business of forging better policies.” He urged that Obama’s speech now “deserves return gestures of equal magnitude from Arabs, Iranians, others in the Islamic world, and Israelis…”

The first leader to respond, probably within a few days, will be Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly rejected Washington’s demands for his endorsing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, while affirming that settlement construction will continue. On Sunday, according to reports from Israel, he announced that he would be making a major policy speech outlining his government’s “principles for achieving peace and security,” which will be a direct response to Obama.

On Friday, Obama moved on to Germany, visiting first the restored city of Dresden, destroyed by allied bombing in February 1945, and then the notorious Buchenwald concentration camp, both in the former East Germany.

But contrary to what critics wrongly predicted would mark the start of “Obama’s European Apology Tour,” the president avoided any references to the militarily-questionable fire-bombing of Dresden, insisting, rather, as he did at the camp, that “to this day there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened, a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful.” Repeating his support for the “unbreakable” bond with Israel, Obama added that “I will not forget what I have seen here today.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, herself a former East German who was pleased he had chosen Dresden for the visit, also kept the commentary upbeat and focused on the future and continuing friendly German-U.S. relations, stating that the city symbolized the progress Germany had made since the collapse of the former Communist East Germany. Summing up much German public opinion, the Berlin daily, Tagesspiegel, caustically commented on the visit to the two sites: “We are lending the scenery, but we are not responsible for the play being played on the stage.”

Before heading for France and partly to remind the world that the U.S. is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq – Obama visited the American military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, the largest outside the U.S. where soldiers wounded in those two countries are being treated.

Then in Normandy, at a high-profile visit and 16-minute speech at the Coleville-sur-Mer U.S. military cemetery, overlooking the D-Day Omaha beach where thousands of allied and German soldiers perished 65 years earlier, the U.S. leader delivered a series of lofty messages to the allied leaders and the some 9000 invited guests, triple the number in Cairo.

Avoiding any references to deaths of some 20,000 French civilians and massive destruction caused by the battling in Normandy, and to the deliberately-neglected integration of African-Americans in U.S. armed forces at that time – both topics covered in some detail by the French media – Obama focused on the heroism displayed, and the need for drawing inspiration from D-Day as new threats and challenges emerge. He did not identify them as he did in Cairo, however.

Only Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one of the four leaders who also addressed the crowd, mentioned the necessity for the allies to again stand “shoulder to shoulder” regarding the war in Afghanistan. Saying, in effect, and reflecting their message to all E.U. nations: we came to Europe’s aid to liberate its citizens from Nazi tyrannny at huge cost; now it was time to come to America’s aid in combating radical, hostile, anti-U.S. forces, notably Al Qaeda and coming to terms with other Islamic states, notably Iran.

Differences and tensions also surfaced, not with Harper nor with Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, but with the president’s host, France’s Sarkozy. In a long meeting at the nearby city of Caen, followed by a media briefing, both leaders affirmed their agreement on most issues overall, but as the French daily Le Monde in its editions dated June 9 noted, in an atmosphere of “sans chaleur,” meaning chilly. Obama, when asked if his short trip to France on Saturday and half of Sunday wasn’t s snub, and meaning Europe, as is widely believed, is not a priority, he replied that he had “a very tough schedule” and would return.

The two leaders disagreed over such issues as Turkey’s future E.U. membership, supported by Obama, opposed by Sarkozy, and how far and when to move on forcing Iran to abandon its military nuclear development; there was no public mention of hesitations in France and widespread opposition in Germany to enhancing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, nor the continuing reluctance of EU members to take and try prisoners currently at the American military base at Guantanamo, Cuba.

Although he insisted he wasn’t bothered, Sarkozy was reportedly miffed when his guest declined an invitation to dinner at the Elysée Palace Saturday evening. Instead, the Obamas, after their two young daughters had been put to bed at the U.S. Embassy residence, dined informally at a fashionable Left Bank bistro. Obama departed forWashington Sunday around 1pm, avoiding any further official meetings with Sarkozy and that morning visited the Pompidou modern art center. Asked by reporters if that wasn’t cutting the visit a bit short with regard to Sarkozy, Obama replied: “I can always pick up the phone and talk to him,” adding that he was looking forward to coming back.

Axel Krause, contributing editor of TransAtlantic Magazine, told inquiring French colleagues that he was bit taken aback when, at their briefing in Caen, Sarkozy called Obama, sitting next to him as “Barack,” while the U.S. leader constantly referred to his host as “President Sarkozy.” A gaffe perhaps, but as a White House correspondent also covering the visit told me: “We all call him by his first name – but only when we’re among ourselves.”

US Politics: Commentary

Meghan McCain: Not My GOP Covergirl

Emily Benavides

When Meghan McCain first lashed out at critics on Twitter, I defended her. Everyone has the right to defend his or her opinions. Then she started attacking and provoking a sort of keystroke war from her 140 characters or less high horse. This is when I started to lose confidence.
It’s no secret that young conservatives need a new figurehead to rally behind. As we enter a time of renewal in the face of plummeting popularity and authority, many of us are seeking someone who can proudly hold up our ideals of fiscal conservatism, limited government and free enterprise and help our party regain credibility and influence.
Many analysts believe Meghan McCain is filling this role for the younger members of the GOP; I disagree. While she does have great influence, the party does not need any more high profile tantrums damaging its already fragile façade. The wealth of her opinions, connections and influence is trumped by her turbulent behavior, weakening the weight of her words with the general public.
Instead of using anger to combat or convey a message, the right needs someone who understands that thought-provoking speeches and op-eds are better able to persuade and sway the public. Maintaining a mature debate with our fellow Americans on the left is critical. The youth of the GOP need someone who will show each and every American that the party is intelligent, centered, and rooted in its values—someone who is ready to champion those values on the national stage.
Young conservatives deserve a voice that will defend the ideals of the party while maintaining dignified prose, never risking disregard of our message due to immaturity or conceit. While no one person will represent every interest of every conservative member, we need someone who can bring us all together, making our party stronger from within.
At a point when rebuilding and redirection are decisive for the future of the party, the time for a new face of the young GOP is now. Who will step up and lead us back to a position of authority in the national forum? It’s not clear, but what is clear is that we need more options so we can make sure our champion is the best suited for the challenges that lay before us.

Emily Benavides is a Masters in Government candidate at Johns Hopkins University.

OBAMA’S UPCOMING OVERSEAS TRIP – HOPES, CROWDS AND OBSTACLES

June 1, 2009

Axel Krause

As President Barack Obama prepares for his second presidential trip, which will take him to Egypt, Germany and France during which he is expected to outline proposals for the Middle East, to address some sensitive, tragic events of World War II, while reinvigorating trans-Atlantic relations, the world is speculatively asking some tough questions.

One of the most pressing comes from Europeans, who on the day of his upcoming arrival in Cairo on June 4 will go to the polls to elect members to the European Parliament - amid widespread apathy and divisions across the political landscape of the 27-nation bloc. The question: how, specifically, can the European Union fit into what Obama will be proposing to forge a stronger, united alliance, particularly with regard to the Muslim world?

The odds for successful diplomatic breakthroughs are about as strong as those for failures resulting from the president’s trip which will end on June 6 at France’s Normandy beaches. There, exactly 65 years earlier, liberating American soldiers who died are buried in a nearby cemetery, which will be commemorated by Obama’s oratory, and a spectacular fireworks display at the D-Day beaches.

Diplomats, academics and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic recall that his first presidential trip this past April to summit meetings in London, Strasbourg and Prague produced mixed results: admiration for Obama’s strong, popular, visionary leadership in the alliance, but disagreements, particularly with Paris and Berlin, over his stimulus and reform plan for economic recovery, military engagement in Afghansitan, and Turkey’s controversial bid for E.U. membership.

“A torn relationship repaired,” concluded Britain’s Economist, yet with mutual, trans-Atlantic trust still seemingly “missing,” As one of its reporters quoted Obama as saying that because of different interests, European political interaction “is not much different from the United States Senate,” while Pascal Boniface, head of France’s respected IRIS think tank, concluded: “Europe is not an essential stake in Obama’s view…there are other urgent priorities.”

Indeed, for Obama and his advisers, success for peace and stability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, hinges mainly on Washington’s repairing its relations with the Muslim world, stretching from the Middle East to Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his childhood and where, initially, he had thought to make this much-awaited speech. The site of his speech, officially unconfirmed, is expected to be Cairo University.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently told reporters, “the desire for the president to speak (to the Muslim world) is bigger than where…” Moreover, as the New York Times editorialised May 25, “working credibly and even-handedly on a Middle East peace deal is central” for Obama’s success, hence the choice of Egypt which despite its dismal human and political-rights record, is a longtime military ally of the U.S. and, as Gibbs said, “in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world.” According to reports this week, the president is also expected to make a stopover in Saudi Arabia.

Administration officials have been trying to play down speculation that the president will lay out a detailed American peace plan, implying that he will be mainly delivering vision, hope, cultural barrier-breaking goals and engagement by his administration to play an active role in the Middle East, hopefully to repair ties damaged severely by the George W. Bush administration. However, observers surveyed by TransAtlantic agree with the New York Times conclusion that “he must go beyond just describing his broad vision of more harmonious ties with the Muslim world.”

One proposal he may mention is a plan for the U.S. to join the E.U. and Russia to open talks with Iran, following its presidential elections June 12, with a view to an agreement on Iranian nuclear buildup. And if there is agreement, to organize a conference on the future of the entire region, with broader participation which would also include Israeli and the Palestinian leaders.

Given the still-lingering hostility to the Bush foreign policy, and the huge, worldwide rock-star popularity of Obama, it is no surprise that big crowds are expected to welcome him on his trip and not only in Egypt. It is doubtful that he will attract anywhere near the 200,000-plus Germans who cheered him on his visit to Berlin last July. But plans are advancing for enthusiastic Germans during his one-day stopover to the historic, restored, former East German city of Dresden, with its magnificent 17th and 18th century baroque and rococo architecture.

Currently, little if anything is known publically about what Obama will say during his trip, as the White House prepares. One explosive, controversial question about the visit to Dresden, however, is already the center of speculation – will he, and if so how, will he address one of the most tragic events of World War Two for which Britain and America bear responsibility – the bombing of the city February 13-15 1945 in which anywhere between an estimated 25,000 (a German estimate) and 250,000 (a Russian claim) civilians perished.

The Anglo-American raids, relying on fire bombs that led to the virtual destruction of the city, remain a subject of heated controversy, amid conflicting claims they constituted a war crime; some historians argue the raids were necessary to end the war; others argue they proved ineffective militarily, while Joerg Friedrich’s best-selling book “The Fire” dealing with allied bombing of Germany from 1940 on, remains popular in many countries.

A related stopover planned, before heading for France as part of what is described as his “war tour,” involves a Nazi forced labor camp that was a satellite of nearby Buchenwald, the notorious concentration camp, and liberated by U.S. forces in April 1945.Among the soldiers of the liberating 89th Infantry Division was Obama’s great uncle, Charlie Payne. The president is expected to evoke his role, although spokesman Gibbs told reporters recently that he did not know if Payne would accompany the president to Germany.

Speculating caustically about what it termed “Obama’s European Apology Tour” on May 15, the online American Thinker concluded the president “may be planning on equating the strategic bombing of a Germany city with the deliberate murder of millions of innocents.”

What Obama says in Normandy will also be followed closely by his admirers and critics, amid speculation that he may address an issue hardly ever mentioned by American visitors to the D-Day sites – the enormous destruction caused by U.S. and British forces in the five departmental regions in and around Normandy, where most of the fighting took place. The Times’ Richard Bernstein, in a Letter from America on May 21, estimated that the battling cost the lives of some 20,000 French civilians.

Bernstein relates this destruction to the war in Afghanistan which Obama is sure to mention on his trip, and to a much-praised book on Europe’s liberation by historian William I. Hitchcock. Bernstein notes that Hitchcock’s thesis is that “even in a morally clear, entirely just and necessary conflict like World War II, civilian suffering was tremendous, much greater than our standard heroic narratives of the war…” Adding that the Afghans, increasingly opposed to the war’s destruction, are “supposed to be among the beneficiaries of the American-led war against the Taliban, one in which many U.S. soldiers have died.”

The notes struck by Obama in Normandy will undoubtedly be upbeat, lofty, historical in scope, reaffirming his administration’s – and American - leadership in the world. Particularly at the D-Day ceremonies being organized at the Colleville-sur-Mer military cemetery, flanked by some 1000 soldiers, other allied leaders, several hundred journalists, and, of course, his host, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The recent Economist cartoon depicting Uncle Sam at the throttle of an American flag-draped train hurtling toward a lone “EU Express”passenger car stalled on broken tracks, got it right, notably with regard to France, where amid growing unemployment, social unrest and Sarkozy’s constant, controversial efforts to lead the E.U. the abstention rate in the European Parliamentary elections ending June 7, is expected to top 60%.

The action-driven, media-minded Sarkozy, reportedly is still annoyed by Obama’s huge popular appeal whenever he sets foot in Europe, and who is constantly promoting his own, France-first leadership role, including in the Middle East. Thus, Sarkozy may again find himself playing second-fiddle to the U.S. president, amid the friendly, massive welcome the French are preparing, summed up by a headline in France’s influential daily, referring to the nearby Normandy city where other D-Day ceremonies are planned: “Yes, we Caen!”

Axel Krause, contributing editor of TransAtlantic Magazine in Paris and a longtime observer of European affairs, believes Obama will, once again, prove a rock-star hit., which won’t bother other, less-chauvinistic EU leaders. But probably Obama won’t get them to overcome their divisions, either, with alternative strategies for the Muslim world and trans-Atlantic relations. But the missing trust mentioned earlier could, hopefully, be rekindled..

Thinking About It

Afghanistan Ambassador Speaks Out On U.S. Troop Surge

Robert Guttman, editor of Transatlantic MagazineArchives

POINT/COUNTERPOINT

POINT

COUNTERPOINT

Articles & Quotes To Consider

(Compiled by Dayanita Ramesh, Johns Hopkins SAIS Center for Politics & Foreign Relations)

Events

Remarks by Said T. Jawad, Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States

“Afghanistan: Where Do We Go From Here?”

Current Columns

A Letter to a Key Obama Advisor on Europe

By Axel Krause, Contributing Editor, TransAtlantic Magazine

October 16, 2009

Interview with HUBERT VEDRINE

By Axel Krause, Contributing Editor, TransAtlantic Magazine

In your 2007 book on history, you predicted that if Americans did not overcome their excessive pride, arrogance (hubris) we face repeated global catastrophes. What is your view today, in light of the election of President Obama?

But what does the change mean in terms of foreign policy?

Obama has made Iran a top priority, insisting on diplomacy and dialogue as the way forward. What is your reaction to assessments, including from President Sarkozy, that this approach is not working, concluding that “severe” economic sanctions are now needed?

What about Obama’s diplomatic approach to the Near East, Iran, Afghanistan, and Islam in general?

That issue, among others, will be discussed at the G20 summit planned for September 24-25. Is this the appropriate forum for such discussions? If not, what approach would you suggest. And, more broadly, on what should the G20 focus its attention?

Meantime, looking ahead, what roles do you see for such other established international institutions, as the G8, IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the OECD, and NATO. Should they be reformed and if so, how?

And NATO?

So how would you describe the current, international architecture?

Assuming the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by Ireland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland, what changes do you forsee for European Union’s role as a major force in the world, U.S., Russia and Asia? What are the prerequisites for succeeding?

What would?

In light of what you just said about France with regard to NATO, how does that organization fit your overall assessment?

How would you assess the present state of French-U.S. relations, compared to the period in which you were Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Then what after (Nicolas) Sarkozy was elected president?

What security-related solution to you suggest?

Will We Ever Learn?

By Ting Xu, Senior Project Manager, Global Project, Bertelsmann Foundation

For Germany’s CDU: It’s the Economy, Stupid! And It Needs to Be…

By Tyson Barker, Bertelsmann Foundation

New Europe takes lead in the EU

Martyna Korkiewicz

OBAMA’S THIRD OVERSEAS TRIP – MIXED RESULTS

July 13, 2009

Axel Krause

US reigns supreme: A unique nomination process

July 6, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

The G8 and the 2009 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy

July 6, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

Swedes are 'taking on the challenge'

July 1, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

Letter from Belfast:Northern Ireland: A different outlet for the same emotion?

June 29, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

German Chancellor Merkel Visits President Obama

June 23, 2009

Martyna Korkiewicz

Elections to the European ParliamentJune 11, 2009Martyna Korkiewicz

US Politics: Commentary

Meghan McCain: Not My GOP Covergirl

Robert Guttman, editor of Transatlantic Magazine

Archives

Letter from Belfast:
Northern Ireland: A different outlet for the same emotion?

Elections to the European Parliament
June 11, 2009
Martyna Korkiewicz