Barack Obama - Foreign Policy

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
What can the Clinton haters say now?

source: Wall Street Journal.com

Obama Tones Foreign-Policy Muscle

To Beef Up Platform, Candidate Lures
Clinton Alumni Seeking Fresh Approach
By NEIL KING JR.
September 5, 2007; Page A10

WASHINGTON -- What Democratic Sen. Barack Obama may lack in foreign-policy experience, he is trying to make up for in sheer numbers of advisers -- enough, says one of the team, for "his own virtual State Department."

Since launching his presidential bid in February, the freshman senator from Illinois has used the burgeoning brain trust -- now over 150 advisers and counting -- to help flesh out an almost wonkishly detailed set of statements, on the Iraq war, on Iran, U.S. counterterrorism strategy, the future of the U.S. military, even Cuba. Coming up next, his advisers say, will be more on China, U.S. energy security, the plight of Iraqi refugees, and how much to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

But the makeup of Mr. Obama's team -- heavy on onetime aides to President Clinton -- also speaks to an internecine feud between Mr. Obama and his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, over which of them represents the future of their party.

For crafting his counterinsurgency strategy, Mr. Obama has Harvard University's Sarah Sewall, who worked in the Pentagon under President Clinton. For overall security issues he leans on Mr. Clinton's former national security adviser, Anthony Lake. What about fighting AIDS or boosting U.S. trade in Africa? For that and more, he has former Clinton administration diplomat Susan Rice.

Mr. Obama has racked up a slew of converts from the Clinton camp, especially among a younger crowd of ex-Clintonites who say they want a fresher approach to new challenges than those offered by Mrs. Clinton. Many of these advisers, like Mr. Obama himself, are in their 40s. (Mrs. Clinton is 59 years old).

Acolytes such as Ms. Sewall, Ms. Rice, or former Clinton White House adviser Ivo Daalder, have found themselves in the midst of what one Obama aide calls "a generational tussle within the Democratic Party."

Even if there is a tussle, so far it hasn't taken the form of substantial policy differences. Both candidates support a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq and the need to turn security over to Iraqi forces. Both favor a more robust emphasis on diplomacy and multilateral engagement, even with archfoes such as Iran. Both say they are willing to use force unilaterally, if need be, to protect U.S. interests.

Instead, the big difference between the two is mainly in style and tone.

While Mr. Obama's camp is working to give heft to a freshman senator just three years removed from the Illinois state legislature, Mrs. Clinton considers her foreign views largely set -- one reason why she has such a small squad of advisers. The core of her team includes several staunch loyalists from her husband's time in power, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who succeeded Mr. Lake as national security adviser during Mr. Clinton's second term. The first two have been outspoken critics of President Bush's foreign policy and his handling of the Iraq war, and strong defenders of the Clinton legacy.

Mrs. Clinton's aides point out that her main adviser is President Clinton himself.

While Mrs. Clinton's team emphasizes tactical edge over sweeping solutions, Mr. Obama's camp is consciously in search of big concepts and grand strategies.

Mr. Lake, an academic and former diplomat, has been working alongside Mr. Obama off and on since 2003. He says he shares the senator's view that the U.S. needs to engage in a sweeping reassessment of its stance in the world -- "a grand strategy," as Mr. Obama put it in his recent book, "The Audacity of Hope."

"We're at a point in the history of our foreign policy where we need to step back and think things through to figure out what fits and doesn't fit with the world today," Mr. Lake says.

Mr. Daalder, who worked in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s and is now at the Brookings Institution, describes the difference between Sens. Clinton and Obama as "the difference between what do we do about Iran and its nuclear program now versus how do we deal with nuclear proliferation writ large."

Mr. Obama's eagerness to lay out a comprehensive foreign policy -- unusual for a candidate at this stage in a campaign -- has made him in some ways the prime mover in the Democratic debates. But it has also opened him to attack from Sen. Clinton and others who are hoping to make a point of Mr. Obama's lack of experience.

Mrs. Clinton called him "naive" for saying he would meet with a short list of despotic leaders without preconditions during his first year as president. She also blasted him for telling an interviewer that he would never use tactical nuclear weapons against a terrorist group. The Clinton campaign also criticized Mr. Obama's statement in a speech in Washington that he would attack terrorist camps in Pakistan if they posed a threat, even without the approval of Pakistan's government.

But these barbs have also given Mr. Obama the chance to paint Mrs. Clinton as a conventional thinker who "lacked the good judgment" to oppose the Iraq war from the outset. "My call for a new foreign policy is based on the same thing that informed my opposition to the war in Iraq: common sense, not conventional Washington thinking," he said during a recent swing through Iowa.

Clinton advisers point to Mr. Obama's slumping national poll numbers as evidence that Mrs. Clinton has emerged much stronger from some of the recent dust-ups over foreign policy.

Mr. Obama did get a well-timed boost recently from one of his party's foreign-policy eminences, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The 79-year-old former Carter national security adviser not only backed Mr. Obama but panned Mrs. Clinton's views as "very conventional" and merely a continuation of "what we had eight years ago."

Mrs. Clinton is the lead Democratic candidate in national polls, but she's still had a rocky time getting her own foreign-policy team in place.

Plenty of notables are in her corner, ranging from Middle East specialist Martin Indyk to John Podesta, President Clinton's former White House chief of staff. Yet the Clinton campaign struggled for months to land a chief foreign-policy coordinator. Lee Feinstein, a former Albright adviser who originally flirted with the Obama camp, signed on with Sen. Clinton in late July.

Obama advisers often describe the Clinton camp as a closed shop, an assertion that Mr. Feinstein disputes. "The senator obviously has very deep foreign-policy experience," he says. "At the same time, she seeks out the best foreign-policy minds, and we are able to draw on a wide and diverse group, from former cabinet officials and diplomats to rising stars in the think tanks."

The Clinton/Obama divide has created some curious fissures in Washington. Mona Sunthep, one of Mr. Berger's top aides at the White House, now serves as a corporate vice-president at Mr. Berger's consulting firm, Stonebridge International. Both Mr. Berger and Ms. Sunthep's husband, Clyde Williams, are big in the Clinton camp. Yet the 39-year-old has gone over to Sen. Obama.

"I am more of his generation," she says.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com

NA-AN884A_OBAMA_20070904195715.gif
 
<font size="3">
This thread is dedicated to taking a look at what foreign policy Barack
Obama might employ if elected as President of the United States.

There is likely to be much confusion on the issue. Can we cut through
the chase . . .

</font size>
 
<font size="5"><center>
Obama makes case for diplomacy,</font size><font size="6">
loud and clear</font size></center>



539w.jpg

Barack Obama fielded a question from a young woman during a town hall meeting
yesterday in Billings, Mont. The candidate is forcefully defending himself against
attacks. (Getty Images)


Boston Globe
By Peter S. Canellos
Globe Staff / May 20, 2008

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama may still be proposing policies that strike conservatives as weak and foolish. But after his aggressive response to President Bush's apparent criticisms of his foreign policies last week, it's clear that he's doing so in a forceful and politically savvy way.

Obama's approach to foreign policy - which emphasizes negotiations more than threats of military action - first emerged as a campaign issue last summer, when Hillary Clinton was looking to show off her expertise and make Obama look like a neophyte.

She tore into him for appearing to rule out a nuclear response against Pakistan, should it be taken over by radical Islamists who also seize control of its nuclear weapons. Obama didn't back down, but the dispute devolved into dueling interpretations of a few ambiguous statements in an Obama interview with the Associated Press.

Perhaps sensing an advantage, Clinton pounced on another of Obama's pronouncements: his promise to talk to the leaders of enemy nations. She called it "naive and irresponsible."

This time, he shot back: "Strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries," Obama said at an Aug. 19 debate. "We shouldn't be afraid to do so. We've tried the other way. It didn't work."

Not only did Obama not flinch, but he turned the dispute into a staple of his stump speech, suggesting that Clinton shared Bush's reluctance to meet with leaders of hostile nations.

So when Bush himself, during a visit to Israel last week, compared the notion of talking to countries that support terrorism to England's failed appeasement of Nazi Germany, Obama wasn't going to give in.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," he said.

When John McCain chimed in that Obama needed to explain his willingness to talk to dictators, Obama declared that "I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple of days."

Speaking in front of a livestock barn in South Dakota, Obama even suggested that it was McCain, not he, who was acting naive.

The presumptive Republican nominee, Obama said, has a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support of terrorism."

Whether Obama is right or not, such demonstrations of backbone serve to validate many of the key assumptions of his campaign: that by strongly advocating for Democratic positions, a candidate can win a more meaningful mandate for change; that Clinton has compromised her principles to inoculate herself against Republican attacks; and especially that Obama alone can transcend the thrust-and-parry approach to politicking that has dominated recent presidential campaigns.

The irony, of course, is that these attacks, whether from Clinton, Bush, or McCain, aren't really cheap: They're legitimate differences of opinion with Obama's own stated policies.

But Obama's ability to deflect his opponents' best shots - not by disputing them, or firing back with a charge of his own, but by standing up firmly for his position - will be the most important measure of his future success.

Assuming that Obama goes on to win the Democratic nomination, his most politically vulnerable point of differentiation with McCain will be on foreign policy. It's the one area where McCain's age - and Obama's - could play to the Republican's advantage. It's also an obvious point of concern for voters concerned that another terrorist attack could happen at any time.

Obama is trying to argue for a kind of muscular liberalism - that by being more open to the world, and more credible as a negotiating partner, the United States can achieve greater safety and security.

It's an inherently tough argument to sell. Voters draw comfort from the idea that military strength can guarantee safety; they can't be too eager to have Obama disabuse them of the notion. But in arguing his case for quiet diplomacy, Obama seems to be having his best success when he makes it loudly and strongly.

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/20/obama_makes_case_for_diplomacy_loud_and_clear/
 
<font size="5"><center>In fall preview,
McCain slams Obama on military service</font size></center>


By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
May 23, 2008

WASHINGTON — Republican John McCain launched a harsh attack on Democrat Barack Obama's lack of military credentials Thursday, charging that the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination has "zero understanding" of veteran's issues.

Obama responded in kind, accusing McCain of engaging "endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts" that "do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people."

The angry exchange — a preview of what will surely be a hotly debated point of difference between the two men if, as expected, they are their parties' nominees for the presidency — came as the fellow senators disagreed over an educational provision in a GI Bill that's up for a vote.

For McCain, who supports the unpopular war in Iraq and is running in a tough year for Republicans, Obama's lack of military experience may be his strongest line of attack in the fall.

Obama threw the first punch in a speech on the Senate floor, questioning McCain's opposition to the education measure, which would increase the amount of money available to veterans who pursue a college degree.

Obama said it was the Senate's "moral duty" to pass the legislation and suggested that McCain's opposition was motivated by partisanship. He painted McCain as a puppet of President Bush.

"I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill," he said. "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue."

An angry McCain answered in a statement released by his campaign.

"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," said McCain, a former naval aviator who was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years during the Vietnam War.

"Running for president is different than serving as president ... the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend," McCain said.

That prompted Obama to respond. "It's disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack instead of debating an honest policy difference," he said in a statement.

Military affairs are likely to be the greatest point of contention between the two men during the fall campaign. Not only do they disagree on Iraq — Obama favors withdrawing U.S. troops, McCain favors a continued U.S. commitment — but they came of age in vastly different times of American military involvement in the world.

McCain, 71, was the scion of a military family who flew combat missions over Vietnam and was a naval officer for 22 years. Obama, 46, was five years old when McCain was taken prisoner in Vietnam and came of age when U.S. military engagements were limited largely to relatively brief incursions in places such as Lebanon, Grenada and Panama.

Thursday's sparring between McCain of Arizona and Obama of Illinois came as the Senate voted 75-22 for a proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would provide more generous college assistance to veterans.

Obama and his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, supported the proposal; Obama has said that Webb's plan would strengthen the military and encourage more people to enlist.

McCain favored a less expensive alternative that Republicans argue would be less of an inducement to leave the service, but the Senate rejected it. McCain wasn't there to vote on Webb's bill because he was campaigning in California. Obama flew back to Washington from a Florida campaign swing for the vote.

Webb is a decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam who's often praised by McCain and is considered a potential running mate for Obama. His plan offers the same benefits to veterans who serve one enlistment or multiple enlistments, while McCain's alternative would have increased benefits in step with a veteran's length of service.

Combat service is no prerequisite for the presidency. President Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard, which critics argued was a way to avoid combat. Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bill Clinton avoided military service during the Vietnam war.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/38215.html
 
<font size="5"><center>
Cuba dissidents back Obama pledge</font size></center>


BBC News
By Michael Voss
BBC News, Havana
May 25, 2008

A group of Cuban dissidents has backed a call by the US presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, for direct talks with the new Cuban President, Raul Castro.

The organisation, Women in White, is made up of female relatives of Cuban political prisoners.

In an open letter to Mr Obama they wrote of their hope that his policies may help free their husbands and sons.

Mr Obama told Cuban exiles in Miami on Friday that America needed to talk to its enemies as well as its friends.

Mr Obama also said that - if elected in November - he would lift President George Bush's restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba but maintain the US trade embargo.

Applauded

The position of both Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican hopeful John McCain is that any change in policy would only benefit Cuba's communist leaders.

The founder of Women in White, Miriam Leiva, and her recently freed dissident husband, Oscar Chepe, also wrote an open letter to Barak Obama.

They applauded his offer to allow Cuban Americans to freely visit relatives here.

They also wrote that a more creative policy could help the transition towards democracy and that the current confrontation is used by the authorities in Havana to justify their repression.

The Cuban government denies that there are any political prisoners on the island, calling them all mercenaries in the pay of the United States.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7418941.stm
 
Que,

I think we should split up the Foreign Policy discussion into different threads.

I.e. 1 thread that deals specfically with Middle East Policy, Asian Policy, European Policy, Latin America,...

Another thread that deals with potential/current conflict issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, N Korea, Darfur, etc.

What are your thoughts? That may the discussion can be more focused on an specific foreign policy issue.
 
I'll break it up any way you think will be helpful or encourage others to participate.

QueEx
 
I'll break it up any way you think will be helpful or encourage others to participate.

QueEx

Cool. What do you think is the most important foreign policy issue out there for Obama to address?

I think have a solid policy on dealing with Iran is critical to his success since Iran is seen as the upcoming threat in the Middle East and will try to influence Iraq, where the US has its own plans. Hence the possibility for tension over Iran is perhaps the most pressing Foreign Policy issue.

I'm going to start a thread: "Obama's Foreign Policy Toward Iran" where we can discuss the pros-cons of his specific policy towards Iran.

Hopefully, from there we can then address other important countries like Saudia Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan --- that way by the time you get to a thread on 'Obama's policy towards the Middle East & Islamic World' - people will have points of reference back to the original threads to address their general views.

What do you think about this idea? :dunno: Might work in creating more focused discussion.
 
Okay with me. Just do a quick search to make sure that a thread has not already been started, i.e., like there is on Pakistan.

QueEx
 
Obama's Foreign Policy - Israel

<font size="4"><center>Obama's Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference</font size></center>

RealClearPolitics
June 4, 2008

It's great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is - let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these emails, I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room - grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have travelled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests - it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I'd moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn't know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea - that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great uncle. He was a Kansas boy, who probably never expected to see Europe - let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn't leave his head.

You see, my great uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division - the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder - part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce, "first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda."

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: "never again."

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel's quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha Rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel's security is at risk, and I don't think any of us can be satisfied that America's recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade - investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel's national interest. It is in America's national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process - not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as President of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel's efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria's support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran - the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Senator McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Senator McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternate reality - one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Senator McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These Presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives - including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear - to the people of Iran, and to the world - that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime - from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Senator McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage - not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It's a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I'll let him explain, Senator McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous Senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush Administration's policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It's time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year's US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world - from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam - the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren't for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country's history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man - James Chaney - on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_remarks_at_aipac_policy.html
 
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy - Israel

<font size="5"><ceneter>Foreign affairs: McCain, Obama
view world in starkly different ways</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Warren P. Strobel
Friday, October 17, 2008


WASHINGTON — Separated by a generation and by one's legendary military experience, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama offer voters contrasting worldviews, suggesting that they'd pursue different foreign policies as president.

With the presidential campaign overshadowed by the financial meltdown, Obama-McCain debates largely have been limited to a handful of world hot spots: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the deterioration of Pakistan and whether to talk to Iran.

Yet on a host of other issues — such as free trade, promoting democracy abroad and dealing with the United Nations and Russia — the two candidates differ markedly in tone, if not always in substance, according to their speeches, statements and position papers.

Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden, promise a return to a traditional Democratic foreign policy that some call liberal internationalism. They favor intervention to stop ethnic slaughter, strengthening global rules against the spread of dangerous weapons and working through international organizations when possible.

McCain, who insists that he's not a clone of President Bush, indicates that he'd pursue a more robust application of U.S. power. He favors aggressive efforts to spread democracy overseas, espouses a hostile view of Russia and seems more inclined to use force and act unilaterally to deal with threats to the country.

It's impossible to predict how any candidate, once elected, will pursue world affairs. Eight years ago this month, candidate Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy — a promise that was quickly forgotten in the wake of terrorist attacks nine months after he took office.

Moreover, McCain or Obama will have to grapple with the financial crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, which could divert their attention and reduce U.S. global influence, at least temporarily.

The two candidates share a few bedrock positions. They both evince strong support for Israel. They promise engagement with China, not isolation. Both favor, in general, international action to combat global climate change. And — with important differences — they both pledge to continue Bush's "war on terror."

But their differences are clear:


DEALING WITH ROGUE REGIMES

Obama is more inclined to talk with U.S. adversaries. In July 2007, during the Democratic primaries, he said he'd be willing to meet in his first year in office, without precondition, with leaders such as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Obama's since backed off slightly, saying that such diplomacy would need careful preparation. In his first debate with McCain, however, he criticized Bush's refusal to talk to enemies, saying "this notion (that) by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked."

McCain has ridiculed the idea of negotiating with leaders such as Ahmadinejad, Chavez or Cuba's Raul Castro. Unlike Obama, he supported Bush's invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, and in years past he's suggested using military force to deal with nuclear-weapons programs in Iran and North Korea.

A senior official in past Republican administrations, asked whether he thought that McCain was too quick to consider using military force, replied simply: "Yes." The former official requested anonymity to speak more frankly.


PROMOTING DEMOCRACY ABROAD

McCain, whose past and present advisers include several prominent members of the "neoconservative" movement, is a forceful advocate for confronting non-democratic governments and for uniting the world's democracies.

In a May 2007 foreign policy speech, the Republican candidate called for establishing a worldwide "League of Democracies" that "would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom." The new body, he said, wouldn't supplant the U.N., but could act when non-democratic powers such as Russia and China block agreement in the U.N. Security Council.

Obama and Biden also favor promoting democratic societies. But they've been sharply critical of Bush's approach, arguing that it's been undercut by U.S. actions in the "war on terror" and over-focused on elections, rather than slowly building democratic institutions.

"People around the world have heard a great deal of late about freedom on the march," Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year. "Tragically, many have come to associate this with war, torture and forcibly imposed regime change."

During this month's vice presidential debate, Biden suggested that Bush's push for Middle East democracy had endangered Israel by helping elect Islamist parties. Bush "insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them.' What happened? Hamas won," Biden said.


PURSUING TRADE

Like many Democratic lawmakers, Obama is lukewarm about pursuing free-trade agreements, favoring them in general, but insisting that they must include strong protections for the environment and workers.

During the Democratic primaries, Obama called for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. In 2005, although he voted against a Central American free trade agreement, it passed. More recently, he opposed a free-trade pact with Colombia, citing violence against labor unions in that country.

"I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long ... the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement," he said during the third presidential debate with McCain.

McCain is a longtime supporter of free trade, backing every major trade deal of recent years. Those include NAFTA, the Central American pact and a pending agreement with South Korea.

During one debate, he criticized Obama for opposing the agreement with Colombia, which he said would lower tariffs, create U.S. jobs and bolster a U.S. ally that's helping fight drug trafficking. "Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer," McCain said.


ANDLING RUSSIA

McCain has a hard-line view of Russia that even some longtime Republican foreign-policy experts find extreme. He's called for Russia's exclusion from the G-8 group of nations; said a U.S. missile-defense system should be built in Eastern Europe whether or not Russia objects; and has pushed to expand NATO along Russia's borders.

The Republican nominee reacted stridently when Russia invaded Georgia in August, saying that he'd told Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in a phone call, "Today, we are all Georgians."

Obama also has been critical of Russia, but he's been more cautious. His focus has been on working with Russia to secure loose nuclear stockpiles to prevent them from falling into terrorists' hands.

"Although we must not shy away from pushing for more democracy and accountability in Russia, we must work with the country in areas of common interest — above all, in making sure that nuclear weapons and materials are secure," he wrote in Foreign Affairs.


HELPING THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Obama's brief Senate record, his closest foreign-policy advisers and his own multicultural background all point to a predisposition to deal with global issues such as poverty, human-rights abuses and ethnic conflict.

The Democratic nominee has called for strong U.S. participation in the U.N. — although he says the organization needs reform; a "no-fly" zone to help stop attacks on civilians in Sudan's Darfur region; and doubling aid to combat poverty and disease to $50 billion by 2012. Lately he's acknowledged that the dollar goal can't be met in light of the global financial meltdown.

McCain's positions don't differ markedly, although he's put less emphasis on these issues.

During their second presidential debate, Obama said that the U.S. must consider intervening when genocide occurs.

McCain was more reticent, recalling costly peacekeeping missions in Lebanon and Somalia. "You have to temper your decisions with the ability to beneficially affect the situation and realize you're sending America's most precious asset, American blood, into harm's way," he said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/54361.html
 
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy - Israel

<font size="5"><center>Obama's Foreign Policy: </font size><font size="6">
Buying in at the Bottom</font size>
<font size="4">

"George W. Bush . . . has poised America
for a diplomatic rebound, which the next
administration will get the credit for carrying out."

- by Robert D. Kaplan </font size></center>


The Atlantic
November 25, 2008

In the spring of 1977, Menachem Begin was elected prime minister of Israel and surprised everyone by choosing as his foreign minister not someone from his own Likud Party, but a star of the opposing Labor Party, Moshe Dayan. It proved a brilliant choice, as Dayan helped direct the peace process with Egypt that culminated with the Camp David accords.

In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States, and rather than choose as his secretary of state someone from among his own supporters, he chose Henry Kissinger, a supporter of Nixon’s arch-rival, Nelson Rockefeller. Again, that proved a fortuitous choice, as Kissinger helped orchestrate a rapprochement with China, as well as accords in the Middle East and with the Soviet Union.

President-elect Barack Obama has now done something similar, picking a rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, to be his secretary of state, rather than someone from among his own supporters. It could also end up a fortuitous choice. Clinton may not be as steeped in foreign policy expertise as a Dayan or a Kissinger, but neither is she a neophyte. Moreover, she will build a strong team at State from among her own supporters, notably former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.

But the real reason that Obama and Clinton might enjoy success is something that goes barely mentioned in the media. Obama and Clinton are buying into a bottomed-out market vis-à-vis America’s position in the world. It is as if they will be buying stock after the market has crashed, and just at the point when a number of factors are already set in motion for a recovery. For President George W. Bush did not just damage America’s position in the world, he has also, over the past two years, quietly repositioned himself as a realist in foreign policy, and that, coupled with a bold new strategy in Iraq, known as the “surge,” has poised America for a diplomatic rebound, which the next administration will get the credit for carrying out.

<font size="4">Consider the following:</font size>


  • Iraq is on the mend, with local and national elections scheduled for 2009 and 2010 respectively, which could well solidify our withdrawal under better-than-previously-expected circumstances.

  • Afghanistan is not on the mend, but Obama will have the benefit of moving more troops there from an improved Iraq, as well as putting into place the new strategy of Army Gen. David Petraeus, who has just taken over Central Command, giving Petraeus responsibility not just for Iraq, but for the Greater Middle East.

  • Moreover, Al-Qaeda may be on the run, thanks to a quiet agreement that President Bush negotiated recently with Pakistan for aerial strikes against enemy targets inside Pakistani territory.

  • Then there is Iran, perhaps about to become more reasonable, given the collapse in the price of oil.

  • Syria has been subtly re-engaged by both America and Europe, and may be about to inch away from Iran’s orbit.

  • And Arab-Israeli peace negotiations have been making a little headway over the course of 2008, even as there has been almost no coverage of it. Here, too, Team Obama is poised to get the credit for break-throughs.


MIddle East

Indeed, the Middle East may just possibly be on the brink of a positive rearranging of pieces over the next few years, thanks to a new American president with the clout derived from high approval ratings both domestically and internationally, that will, in turn, affect decision-making in places like Teheran and Damascus, whose citizenries likely have a higher opinion of Obama than they have of their own leaders. Do not underestimate the importance of a popular American president coupled with increased stability in Iraq, which will be progressing from one democratic election to another.

Then there's China, India, and Russia. China and the United States may be about to move closer together, thanks to the world economic crisis, which now increases the degree to which each of these two great powers will depend on the other. In India, Bush has left a legacy of improved relations, thanks in no small measure to the recently concluded nuclear pact. And Obama’s promise to engage Russia, while perhaps calling a halt to NATO expansion - even as Russia is weakened by falling oil prices and a negative international reaction to its adventure in Georgia – could signal improved ties on that score. And improved ties with Russia could mean more Russian pressure on Iran.


South American, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe

In South America, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has become measurably more unpopular according to recent polls, even as he, too, is weakened by falling oil prices. Obama can also look forward to the end of the Castro regime in Cuba and that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe over the next four years. Burma may be edging towards a transition away from its aging, implacable dictator, Than Shwe. North Korea is a dicey call, as Kim Jong Il continues to manipulate negotiations, but the overall trend there is in the direction of a comprehensive agreement.​

So, yes, this may be a market where buyers are once again starting to trickle in, signifying that a bottom has been reached. Good timing for Hillary.

Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811u/obama-hillary-kaplan
 
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy - Israel

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090216_emerging_obama_foreign_policy" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090216_emerging_obama_foreign_policy">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Cool. What do you think is the most important foreign policy issue out there for Obama to address?

I think have a solid policy on dealing with Iran is critical to his success since Iran is seen as the upcoming threat in the Middle East and will try to influence Iraq, where the US has its own plans. Hence the possibility for tension over Iran is perhaps the most pressing Foreign Policy issue.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">I'm going to start a thread: "Obama's Foreign Policy Toward Iran" where we can discuss the pros-cons of his specific policy towards Iran. </span>


What do you think about this idea? :dunno: Might work in creating more focused discussion.

I'm searching for that thread. Did you start it ???

I believe there may soon be a "MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT" from the President on the subject.

QueEx
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146286.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146286.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Back
Top