Restitutor Orbis

After eight years of cowboy diplomacy - that is to say, waving a six-shooter around drunkenly and threatening everybody in the room - it's not easy to get used to the idea of actual diplomacy, that is, a serious attempt to communicate with the others in the room and to find ways to work towards common - as well as sometimes conflicting - goals and aspirations. Rather than vacationing, Obama is working. Rather than relying on hunches and knee-jerk ideological responses, he is getting out there, mixing it up, and informing himself and others. He is, in this respect, doing exactly the right thing.

On Wednesday, Obama flew into Stansted Airport near London. From here he will begin his first major foreign trip since taking office in January. An important part of this trip will be attendance of the Group of 20 major economies this week in London. As Reuters reports, he will also attend "a NATO summit on the French-German border before stopping in the Czech Republic and Turkey" as well as "meetings on the sidelines of the G20 with the leaders of Russia, China and other nations."

It is always interesting to compare Republican rhetoric on Obama's overseas popularity - they continually paint a very negative picture, suggesting that Obama has irritated all our foreign friends - with a more fact-based analysis. For example, Reuters goes on to say:

The Democratic U.S. president hopes to capitalize on a reservoir of goodwill because of the change in policies and style from his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, who was unpopular abroad.

Analysts said enthusiasm for Obama among the public in Europe will make for a positive tone in his meetings with allies such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

As usual, Republican rhetoric falls far short of accuracy. Obama IS popular overseas. There is great hope among our friends that times have indeed changed. It was Bush who was wildly unpopular, who offended all our friends. This attempt to re-write history, to white-wash Bush and transfer his sins onto Obama's shoulders will not succeed. People are too well informed these days via Internet news sources. The facts are always literally a button away.
Besides dealing with the economic situation, Obama is looking to rally support for his Afghanistan policy:

At the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the leaders will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the transatlantic alliance. In a move symbolizing closer Franco-American ties, France is rejoining NATO's military command after decades of self-imposed exile.

Obama will use the NATO summit to further explain a strategy he unveiled this week for Afghanistan that puts a strong focus as well on Pakistan. It sets as the main goal the defeat of al Qaeda and Taliban militants.

Given how far down Bush has put the US in the World's eyes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a very hard sell. Yet he has no choice but to try. We can't punt on fourth down. We're forced to go for it and hope we get the needed yardage because there is no second chance and we can't count on getting the ball back.

I am going to push an article I wrote a couple weeks back and which was published at Associated Content.

A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Conservative America and Revolutionary Iran
US diplomacy with Iran during the Bush years embraced decades of propaganda and misunderstanding. Improved relations require a new paradigm marked not by ideology but by pragmatism and a willingness to see the world as it is - not how we wish it to be.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1454813/a_selffulfilling_prophecy_conservative.html

President Obama has made the first trip of his presidency - to Canada today. He is even more popular in Canada than in the US (they're not burdened with our religious conservatives) - 81%. Canada is a good place to start. Hilary Clinton is in the Far East and Obama has a special envoy in the Middle East, and for too long matters on the American continents have suffered because of Bush's lack of effort in cultivating friends. A dictatorial style does not get you far. There is a lot of ill will to be addressed and mended at this point.

There are some issues between our two countries that will be addressed. As CNN lists them:

• The war in Afghanistan: Canada has about 2,800 troops in Afghanistan, but Parliament has voted to pull them out by 2011.


• At the same time, Obama has approved a significant increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, bringing the total there to 55,000.


• Obama said he will take up the issue of Canada's troop withdrawal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper when the two meet in Ottawa.
  
  "My hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper, that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy, and one that ultimately the people of Canada can support, as well as the people of the United States can support," he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday.


• A "Buy American" clause in Washington's economic stimulus package: Canadians worry about protectionism because of a provision in the package that requires the use of U.S.-produced iron, steel and other manufactured goods in public works projects paid for by the $787 billion package.

According to Reuters, Obama reassured the Canadians on open trade.

Obama, on his first trip abroad as president, sought in talks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to allay Canadian concerns raised by a "Buy American" clause in a $787 billion U.S. economic recovery plan he signed this week.

"Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa.

"And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries," he said.

He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to "grow trade not contract it."

I believe that free trade is good. I was convinced of that by a macro economics class in college. But what we have had is not really fair trade. We allow all imports but other countries limit ours. That is NOT free trade, and I hope Obama will address that.

And unfortunately, improving the environment does not seem to be high on the agenda: "But with his country facing its worst economic crisis in decades, Obama stressed the importance of Canada as the United States' largest energy provider. Most of the output of the oil sands is destined for U.S. markets." Cleaning up "oil sands in the western province of Alberta, from which oil is extracted in a process that spews out large amounts of greenhouse gases" will have to wait. Obama campaigned on a green ticket but I can understand that there will be limitations on what can be done given the state of the economy. Still, it is unhappy news, if not unexpected.

Update 8:09PM: This just in from FOX news, a bit of good news to offset the less happy vents of the day:

The chairman of the Senate banking committee claimed Thursday that he would "look at every possible legal means" to recover billions in bonuses to Wall Street executives, after President Obama called the bonuses plain "outrageous."

The president reacted harshly Thursday to reports that corporate employees got paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year.

"That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful," he said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., released a statement saying: "I'm demanding that the Treasury Department figure out some way to get this money back."

Finally some bad news coming out of the Obama Administration. Funding was included in the House's version of the stimulus package for Bush's unconstitutional "Faith Based Initiative." I earlier sent a letter to my senator to urge the Senate to remove this part of the bill. But this is not the end of the story. I just received the following from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

Media outlets reported today that President Barack Obama will name Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal minister who did religious outreach during the campaign, to head a revamped White House office of “faith-based” initiatives.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called on Obama to act quickly to overturn executive orders and other policies from the Bush administration that undercut civil rights and civil liberties.

“I urge President Obama and his staff to work expeditiously to fix several glaring problems with the ‘faith-based’ initiative,” Lynn said. “Time is of the essence. Every day the initiative operates under Bush-era rules is another day rights are violated and tax money is squandered.”

Lynn said the Obama administration should work to implement a series of recommendations the new president made in July. During a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama vowed to end taxpayer-funded job bias in faith-based programs, forbid proselytizing in these programs and subject them to oversight to make sure they are effective.

Clearly, this is a mistake of epic proportions. If Church and State are separate, how can the State appoint anyone to oversee anything that is not, according to the Constitution, in any way within the purview of the federal government?

According to the UPI, "The White House declined to comment."

I hope the news is not true. It will be a huge disappointment if Obama does indeed appoint a "religious czar." We have enough czars already, and frankly, I'd like to see the term done away with, given its unhappy connotations.

On another front, as I reported last night, the stimulus package was approved by the House and must now face the Senate. The New York Times observes that while

While the House and Senate measures are similar, they are most likely to differ in ways that could snarl negotiations between Democrats from the two chambers, and delay getting a measure to the president. In particular, House and Senate Democrats are split over how to divide $87 billion in relief to the states for Medicaid, with senators favoring a formula more beneficial to less-populous states.

Democrats’ own differences aside, they also are under pressure from the White House to be open to proposals from Senate Republicans who might support the final legislation if their interests are accommodated, and which might draw a few Republican supporters on a final vote next month in the House.

The New York Times this morning had a piece about Obama's style, including his overturning Bush's dress code - the President and his staff have been photographed working in the Oval Office sans jacket. Scandalous! The article also discussed his work habits:

Although his presidency is barely a week old, some of Mr. Obama’s work habits are already becoming clear. He shows up at the Oval Office shortly before 9 in the morning, roughly two hours later than his early-to-bed, early-to-rise predecessor. Mr. Obama likes to have his workout — weights andcardio — first thing in the morning, at 6:45. (Mr. Bush slipped away to exercise midday.)

He reads several papers, eats breakfast with his family and helps pack his daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, off to school before making the 30-second commute downstairs — a definite perk for a man trying to balance work and family life. He eats dinner with his family, then often returns to work; aides have seen him in the Oval Office as late as 10 p.m., reading briefing papers for the next day.

Finally, on the diplomacy front, Reuters reports that

Officials in U.S. President Barack Obama's administration are drafting a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing relations and opening the way for direct talks, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday.

The U.S. State Department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected last November, the report said. It was a response to a letter of congratulations sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after Obama's poll victory.

The letter gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Iranian administration, but instead seeks changes in its behavior, the paper said. It would be addressed to the Iranian people and sent directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or released as an open letter.

Obama gave an interview Monday with Al Arabiya TV, offering a new face of America to Arabs and Muslims. Obama made it clear that the US would remain friends and allies of Israel but he offered an olive branch of Islamic nations and expressed concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people. Significantly, this was his first television interview, and it was not given to domestic networks but to an Arab network seen by tens of millions of Muslims.


CNN reports that

Obama's interview was seen widely in Pakistan and has received a generally positive response from analysts there. Islamabad author and journalist Imtiaz Gul told CNN: "It's a good sign of an attempt to reconcile with the Muslim world, to say America wants to reach out to them and not to consider them as an enemy."

Another piece I saw today was from Frontal 21, a German newsmagazine, which had a report about the misdeeds of the Bush Administration, specifically, in this case, torture and human rights abuses. This piece argues that legally, Obama is bound to prosecute Bush.



I don't think we can ignore Obama's governing style in the decisions he's made and is yet to make. Bush seemed to govern either according to an ideological play-book or on intuition, and he surrounded himself with a staff of "yes men". Facts had to conform to ideology and unpleasant facts had to be legislated out of existence, ignored, or reinterpreted so as to no longer present a problem. It's no wonder that the Bush foreign policy decisions of the past eight years led to so many problems and even debacles.

But as a January 20th article in the New York Times points out, Obama is a different sort of president. He actually likes divergent opinions. He actually likes facts. He is willing to entertain opposing voices before coming to an informed decision.

What the country has seen of his leadership style so far evokes the discipline of George W. Bush and the curiosity of Bill Clinton. Mr. Obama is not shy about making decisions and making them expeditiously — he assembled his team in record time — but he has also sought to tap into the nation’s intellectual dialogue at a time of great ferment...“He sort of lives in a grudge-free zone,” said John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of his transition team. “He’s capable of taking on board a lot of information and making good decisions. He knows he’s going to make mistakes. But he also knows that you’ve got to do the best you can, make tough decisions and move on.”

It is refreshing to have somebody in charge who can and will look at the world unblinkered by ideological predispositions. The world is a dangerous place and ideology only makes it more so. The world is not a simple place and ideology does not allow for levels of complexity. But as the New York Times reports,

“I don’t think it maps into traditional right-left, but nor is it Bill Clinton-like triangulation,” said Robert B. Reich, Mr. Clinton’s labor secretary and an economic adviser to Mr. Obama. “My sense is he genuinely believes that people can come to a rough consensus about big problems and work together effectively. I don’t really get a sense of ideological position. He’s obviously a man of strong convictions, but they don’t fall into the standard boxes.”

They are starting to refer to Obama as a "post-partisan" president for his efforts to work across the aisles and to include opponents in the debate and decision-making process. This president wants consensus, not "us" vs. "them." To that end, he has dropped the $200 million that was supposed to go towards contraceptives in the new stimulus bill. This is a concession to Republicans, though they are no doubt claiming some sort of ideological victory. In the end, Obama does not really need the Republicans to pass the bill, which should be enough proof of his sincerity to find that consensus when he meets with Republicans at a luncheon on Capitol Hill today (CNN is saying that today "Obama tests his bipartisan potential"). The Republicans are apparently claiming that the Democrats are Obama's true problem, hinting that they are not in lock-step with the president (Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky on the TODAY show this morning), but these reports are patently false. In fact, six Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for Obama's request to have the remaining $350 billion from the first stimulus package released to him last week.

MSNBC reports that "House Republicans have drafted an alternative. Except for an extension of unemployment benefits, it consists exclusively of tax cuts." Not surprising; and not very helpful either. For eight years they've had what they wanted, and now, as a minority, they want to dictate to the majority, after a popular vote utterly rejected their failed policies, what we should do now in this economic crisis their policies created. Fascinating.

I will save the best for last. ABC news is reporting that "The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France." Given that the taxpayers have forked over $45 billion to Citigroup to bail them out, it seems particularly obscene to buy the plane from France when at least buying one from the US would have helped US industry and by extension, US workers.

The decision came 24 hours after the banking giant, which was rescued by a $45 billion taxpayer lifeline, defended buying the state-of-the-art Dassault Falcon 7X -- one of nine to be flying in U.S. skies -- as a smart business deal.

The jet, the epitome of corporate prestige and privilege, can carry 12 passengers in elegant comfort.

ABC News has learned that on Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to "fix it."

We are nearly at the end of Obama's first week in office. These have been momentous days, pregnant with hope and promises fulfilled. Most significant of all the changes Obama has brought to the presidency is his willingness to embrace diplomacy. And this openness, this willingness to talk before shooting, is already bearing fruit. According to the Associated Press,

Fidel Castro is said to like the new American leader, and North Korea and Iran both sounded open to new ideas to defuse nuclear-tinged tensions...Iran still considers the U.S. the "Great Satan," but a day after Obama was sworn in, it said it was "ready for new approaches by the United States." Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said his country would study the idea of allowing the U.S. to open a diplomatic office in Tehran, the first since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

I have been reading a very compelling book, David Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerilla (Oxford, 2009), who points to the problems long plaguing US relations with Iran. I have to wonder if Obama isn't familiar with Kilcullen, who served General Petraeus in Iraq as Senior Counterinsurgency Advisor. This is what Kilcullen has to say:

There is a certain amount of irrationality in our Iran policy, arising in part from the experiences of the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979-80...There is baggage on both sides, of course; some Iranians remember the U.S.-led overthrow of the Mossadeq government in 1953 with equally vivid bitterness while others, opposed to the current regime, blame America for the revolution of 1979. This baggage sometimes makes American policy-makers reluctant to accept the historical and geopolitical fact of Iran's importance in its region, and hence the underlying legitimacy of Iran's long-term aspirations to play a regional role, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, the United States and the rest of the international community have a clear interest in ensuring Iran plays a constructive role in those countries, rather than its current highly destructive and de-stabilizing role. Still, it seems clear that distinguishing Iran, as a country, from the clericist regime in Tehran and from the Iranian people it opposes, is fundamental to developing an effective Iran policy. The youthfulness of Iran's population, and Iranians' widespread dissatisfaction with the only regime many of them have ever known, are key advantages for the United States. But lack of diplomatic representation in Tehran, along with limited willingness to engage in discussion with Iran's leadership group - backed by force and international consensus, and addressing the broadest possible range of issues in partnership with other Muslim allies - severely limits U.S. options and restricts situational awareness. This makes it hard to clearly discern the Iranian role in an Islamic civil war, or to formulate viable policy responses to it (pp. 20-21).

Clearly, the US has understood as little of Iran's real and legitimate concerns as it did those of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We always tend to think in terms of Good vs. Evil and those are not useful demarcations. The real world is more complex than that. We're not always innocent of blame; the other side is not always guilty of the blame.

The Brookings Institute has released a paper studying the issues, Europe, the United States, and Middle Eastern Democracy: Repairing the Breach. They suggest the following steps:

• Avoid concretizing divergent rhetoric in disparate European and American mechanisms or institutions. Brussels and Washington should consider setting up a higher-level transatlantic forum for coordinating policies in the Middle East, along the lines of the U.S.-E.U. strategic dialogue on Asia established in 2005.


• Continue issuing joint diplomatic statements on the need for and desired shape of Middle Eastern reform. The Atlantic community should leave Arab leaders in no doubt of the West’s continued interest in and attention to democratic growth and human rights improvements in the Middle East.


• Coordinate rewards on offer for democratic reform. The Atlantic allies should seek common criteria for determining such rewards and coordinate on the use of positive conditionality to induce greater reform and ease the costs of change.


• Uphold the principle that local civil society can seek and accept foreign assistance. The European Union and the United States should articulate clearly and forcefully that their links to and support of Arab civil society are non-negotiable.


• Coordinate positions on engagement with Islamists. Western defense of peaceful political activism should not be selective, and transatlantic pressure should be wielded when regimes crack down on nonviolent Islamist organizations or prevent them from meeting with Western donors.


• Improve coordination in the provision of non-governmental aid. American and European government funders should engage in more sustained and regular dialogue on funding strategies for democratic development in specific states, and how to use their funds most efficiently to achieve common goals.


• Stress jointly that democratic development in the Middle East is a common interest of Europe, the United States, and the peoples of the region, not a means to other ends. Democracy should be supported as a system that meets the aspirations of Middle Eastern citizens for greater say in their government, and not simply because it is judged as instrumental for Western interests.

The paper points out the Europe and the US approach the problem from different angles and conclude that "If European and American policymakers wish to move beyond the ructions of recent years, they can and should focus on their points of relative similarity as a foundation from which transatlantic cooperation in the Middle East can, cautiously, be rebuilt."

On the economic recovery front, the full text of the bill to be introduced is now available from the US House of Representatives Committee on Rules here.

The New York Times reports that
"The Obama administration plans to move quickly to tighten the nation’s financial regulatory system":

Officials say they will make wide-ranging changes, including stricter federal rules for hedge funds, credit rating agencies and mortgage brokers, and greater oversight of the complex financial instruments that contributed to the economic crisis.

The Times observes that "Some of these actions will require legislation, while others should be achievable through regulations adopted by several federal agencies."

The best news of all is perhaps this: "Administration officials have begun to study ways to control executive compensation."

“Excessive executive compensation that provides inappropriate incentives,” Mr. Geithner said, “has played a role in exacerbating the financial crisis.”

Hail to the chief!