Search This Blog

Loading...

About Me

My Photo
I am a senior at Roanoke College majoring in history. You can learn more about me here: jastang.com.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Five Crucial Points About The Egypt Protests

New Republic blogger Heather Hurlburt identifies 5 things to notice about this Egyptian revolution:


Revolutions often erupt with little warning. Explosions of popular anger on the “Arab Street” have become a cliché. But no one saw Tunisia coming, and few believed that unrest would spread to Egypt—except the Egyptian activists, apparently young and secular at the core, who have been out on the streets every day since. This morning, I had the chance to ask a member of the House Intelligence Committee whether they had ever been briefed that such a thing was possible. Answer: No. So when the Beltway “experts” tell you what’s going to happen next, take it with a grain of salt. One useful way to think about such revolutions is to remember 1989. There was the revolt in East Germany, which nobody expected to start, and then nobody expected to end peacefully. And then you had Romania, which no one expected to end in a fusillade of bullets... except the Romanians.
Watch the military: There are institutions in Egypt, and they will ultimately, though perhaps not today, make the decisive difference. Years of repression and neglect mean that there’s no obvious civilian—much less secular—force that can immediately step in to govern Egypt. But there are institutions: the military; the security services; blocs of elites around business, academic, and religious institutions; and the political parties and movements. The choices they make now will be central to what happens and how. Right now, it appears that the police have withdrawn from the street rather than escalate to live fire, and that the army is in the street and being welcomed by the protestors—the military has not been deployed in Cairo since 1986 and has never fired on Egyptian civilians, though confused reports of its actions in Cairo today are still emerging.
America can’t stop this revolt. Commentators across the political spectrum can’t seem to keep themselves from implying that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, by their choice of adjectives, can “save” President Mubarak. We must disabuse ourselves of the idea that we can determine how this turns out. As Michael Hanna has written onDemocracy Arsenal, this is less about the state of our union than “the tattered state of their unions.” We can, however, exert some control over whether we are perceived by the citizenry in Egypt and elsewhere as part of the solution. Our diplomats and spokespeople are now at pains to prove, in real time, that when we talk about stability, we mean it in a way that favors the governed, and not just the governors. As Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution told the Washington Post, our policy options are currently very limited: "The most the U.S. can do in the short run is reorient their rhetoric. ... People want moral support; they want to hear words of encouragement. Right now, they don't have that. They feel the world doesn't care and the world is working against them." But, with talk of a negotiated departure for Mubarak shooting around Twitter, there may come a time when the United States has to become even more involved.

Continue Reading Here...

Former Ambassador John Bolten Discusses Egypt

Democracy Is Not Stability

Washington Post foreign affairs columnist Anne Applebaum writes about how the U.S. wants stable regimes, but the best to get that is through what already supports: repressive ones.   She writes:

Politicians like stability. Bankers like stability. But the "stability" we have so long embraced in the Arab world wasn't really stability. It was repression. The benign dictators we have supported, or anyway tolerated—the Zine al-Abidine Ben Alis, the Hosni Mubaraks, the various kings and princes—have stayed in power by preventing economic development, clamping down on free speech, keeping tight control of education, and above all by stamping down hard on anything resembling civil society. Every year, more books are translated into Greek—a language spoken by 11 million people—than into Arabic, a language spoken by more than 220 million. Independent organizations of all kinds, from political parties and private businesses to women's groups and academic societies have been watched, harassed, or banned altogether.
The result: Egypt, like many Arab societies, has a wealthy and well-armed elite at the top and a fanatical and well-organized Islamic fundamentalist movement at the bottom. In between lies a large and unorganized body of people who have never participated in politics, whose business activities have been limited by corruption and nepotism, and whose access to the outside world has been hampered by stupid laws and suspicious bureaucrats. Please note that the Egyptian government 's decision to shut down the entire country's Internet accessover the weekend—something it can do because Internet access is still so limited—had almost no impact on the demonstrators. For all the guff being spoken about Twitter and social media, the revolution in Cairo appears to be a very old-fashioned, almost 19th-century revolution: People see other people going out on the streets, and they join them.

We are surprised, and no wonder. For the last decade, successive U.S. administrations have sometimes paid lip service to democracy and freedom of speech in the Arab world. Some U.S. organizations, official and unofficial—the National Endowment for Democracy comes to mind—have supported independent human rights activists in Egypt and elsewhere. Some U.S. journalists, such as my Washington Post colleague Jackson Diehl, have cultivated Egyptian democrats, interviewed them, written about them. But to U.S. presidents and secretaries of state of both political parties, other issues—oil, Israel, and then the war on terror—always seemed more important. Our money subsidized the Egyptian army and police, and the Egyptians know it. In Cairo, police were firing "Made in the USA" tear gas at protesters.

Think about it.  Democracy allows people to choose leaders and the result may not be a particular leader that the U.S. loves, like when Hamas or Hezbollah win elections.  Is it really stability we want, or leaders that are the U.S. yes men to foreign policy?  A regime change in Egypt will be the real test of that theory.

Morning Memo: Monday, January 31

CAIRO, EGYPT - JANUARY 29: A protestor in Tahrir Square holds a photo showing President Mubarak's face crossed out on January 29, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. Tens of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets across Egypt in Cairo, Suez, and Alexandria to call for the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. Riot police and the Army have been sent into the streets to quell the protests, which so far have claimed 32 lives and left more than a thousand injured. (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

Good Morning!

Egypt's Enigma Continues...

Top Topics:

Egypt's Protests Continue To Be Strong

Egypt's Military Gets More Aggressive

Top Egyptian Opposition Leader Calls For Mubarak's Resignation

Clinton Calls For A Peaceful Transition

President Obama Calls For Meeting In The Middle on Egypt

Mubarak Will Take Measures To Stabilize Economy

Countries Start Evacuating At Cairo Airport

Crisis Plagues AU As It Begins Summit

Tunisia's Top Islamic Leader Returns

South Sudan Has Officially Voted For Secession

Figures of Note:

longtermbyage.png



Opinions of Note:

Washington Post Expert Roundup on Egypt

Steven Cook on ElBaradei's Role in Egypt

Videos of Note:

Vice President Joe Biden on Why this is not like 1989

Fareed Zakaria Interviews ElBaradei

Hillary Clinton From "This Week" on Egypt

Mark Zuckerberg and  Jesse Eisenberg Together on SNL

My First Thought: Transition Back Towards Foreign Policy

The Obama presidency has been characterized by domestic policy achievements: healthcare, repealing DADT, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, financial regulation, a new food safety bill, starting race to the top, amongst a whole host of other large accomplishments.  He lacks in foreign policy substance.  Sure, he got the senate, after some unfortunate arm twisting and needless argument, to ratify the START Treaty to help "reset" relation with Russia and he did make a promise to reduce troops in Afghanistan around the middle of July.  Other than the minor diplomatic head games, his presidency has been marred with domestic objectives.

A trend like this is not uncommon in a presidency.  Most presidents do not campaign on platforms of foreign policy because they do not have that much experience in dealing with foreign policy in the first place.  Other than being in the senate foreign relations committee, Obama's record for foreign policy was very little.  President George W. Bush also had very little foreign policy experience as did Clinton.  George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon are exceptions to this rule, in the modern era, because they both served as vice presidents and H.W. Bush served as head of the CIA.  Many presidents also avoid foreign policy just as a matter of precaution to not spark an international incident.

However, in order for a president to step into the fray, a big cataclysmic event must happen.  For George W. Bush it was 9/11 and for Obama it could be the Egyptian protests.  Even though the president is playing it safe in Egypt this could be his rallying cry to support those who are trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, not by force, but through organic action.  Moments like this in history change a president's view on the world. Suddenly, nothing on the domestic plate matters that much.  He must be careful not to get too sidetracked for fear of defining a agenda he does not want, like another Freedom Agenda pronounced by Bush.  Whether or not a regime change comes to Egypt history will be moving in the direction of that part of the world.  Obama must develop a coherent strategy to engage with Middle East democracy movements.  Without that crucial new strategy, he could miss the train on foreign policy.

Photo Credit: CBS News 

Graphs from Ezra Klein and the Economist

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Egypt: Obama's Catch-22

In this still image taken from video, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak addresses the nation on Egyptian state TV in Cairo January 28, 2011. Mubarak called for dialogue and said he would name a new government on January 29, 2011. REUTERS/Handout (EGYPT - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST IMAGES OF THE DAY) NO SALES. NO ARCHIVES. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS
All eyes are staring at Egypt as the world waits for a new power structure to take shape in a country that has not had true democracy for the last 20 years.  My advice to most people, and from the wisdom of many sagacious foreign policy analysts, is to just hold out on the commentary until the dust settles.  Unfortunately, the Twitter-based world demands an immediate reaction to every event at a seconds notice.  

While I cannot comment on the ground situation in the land of the pyramids, a good response to U.S. action is in order.  President Obama gave a statement yesterday in support of the protesters, as long as they protested peacefully, and wanted the regime to initiate talks for true democratic reform.  Beyond what many imagine a presidential response to look like, this is the most typical.  Furthermore, it gives the Obama administration some wiggle room to negotiate with whoever might be in power.  

It is a smart response because if the protests fail and Mubarak stays in his comfy chair as Egypt's current autocrat, the Obama administration will be in the same situation as the Iranian election crisis of 2009 where no reforms actually took place.  On the other hand, if Mubarak is forced to pull a Shah of Iran maneuver and leave the country, Obama can tell the public that he does support the protest movement and still have the courtesy of saying that he warned Mubarak of the ails of not reforming Egypt's democratic process. 

Most people are not fluent in Egyptian politics to understand the power dynamics in the country. The Muslim Brotherhood is the dominant opposition force in Egyptian politics, despite being banned from the current political scene.  The main problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood voice has largely been absent from the protests and if Mubarak falls it is not clear who will take power.  Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also returned to the country, but he does not have that much sway over the Egyptian people, since he has lived abroad for so long.  He would be the west's hope for true democracy, but his support in Egypt is questionable at best.  The other determinant in this political storm will be how supportive and active the Egyptian military will be in carrying out the orders of Mubarak.  So far the military has been sent out, but their results are mixed. 

With these power structures in a constant flux, it is better that Obama stand back and see what happens.  Overreaction could hurt the situation.  Worrying about hypothetical questions on the state of Israel-Egypt relations and the rise of radical Islam in the country seem frivolous at this point when the question of who will take the reigns has not been decided yet.  Soon enough, it will all be decided.  

Photo Credit: Reuters

CFR.org - The World Next Week: January 27, 2011

CFR.org - The World Next Week: January 27, 2011

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egypt Protests Continue

As a movement appears to be building in Egypt, it is important to follow the events and see where they go.  I can speculate all day, but I may not be right.  Either this will turn into a glorious democratic revolution or just another Iranian facade.  The best way to follow these protests is to stay in the loop:

Background about Issues causing the turmoil

Latest Updates:

The Lede from the NYT

Andrew Sullivan's up-to-the minute look at the situation

Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy offers insight

Hillary Clinton makes speech at State Department

Column (1/28/11): America's Different Kind of Sputnik Moment

Like many students, I listened intently to the president address the nation on Tuesday to announce a new “Sputnik Moment.” The buzzword surrounding the speech was competitiveness bringing the implied questions: How do we make America great again? Depending on your interpretation of events, the U.S. might already be the greatest nation on earth, but with a dilapidated infrastructure, an education system that is clearly not making the grade, and a compounding debt crisis it’s clear that policy wonks must unite to find solutions to these problems.

I wish I had the time to address each of the topics. Since most have been beaten to death by the twenty-four hour news cycle, the job seems a bit moot. Instead, a crucial element of the speech that concerns college student seems more appropriate. In order to foster a more competitive America it is necessary to get an adequate workforce that is up to the task. Engineering, scientific research, and vocational training were all lauded by the president as new career tracks to bring the U.S. into the 21

“Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations — they’re not standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure,” said President Obama with nationalistic zeal.

The emphasis on math and science to build an entrepreneurial spirit is great, but building a mass army of government subsidized mind molded zombies of engineers is not the best way to go. Don’t get me wrong, government investment can be a good investment. The interstate highway system, NASA, and military-industrial complex are all fantastic ways to create jobs, but it may not work to individual business investment.

Continue Reading Here...

Read more headlines from the Brackety-Ack

Morning Memo: Friday, January 28

Yemeni demonstrators chant slogans during a rally calling for an end to the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in Sanaa, Yemen, Thursday, Jan. 27, 2011. (AP / Hani Mohammed)

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Opposition Protests Grow in Egypt

Protests Spread To Yemen

AU Summit Opens Despite Conflicts

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Debates Sanctions Against Belarus

Tunisia's Government Appoints Independents To Key Positions

DAVOS Challenges Nestle On Ivory Coast Cocoa

Obama Names New Press Secretary

Spending Cuts Forced On Pentagon Because Congress Did Not Act

Mike Pence Will Not Seek The GOP Nomination For President In 2012

Figures of Note:


Reaction to Cutting Government Spending in Various Areas, January 2011





Opinions of Note: 


David Bosco on Why Many Democracy Revolutionaries are IO Leaders

Dick Morris on Obama's Out of Touch Style

My First Thought: Could I Be Wrong?

With the uprisings in Tunisia, the fever seems to have spread elsewhere in the Arab world.  Egypt and Yemen both are facing protests from democracy promotion advocates.  This begs the question, do I have this movement wrong?  I mentioned how I did not think these new democratic protests would not go very far.  The comparisons made to the 1989 fall of communist Eastern Europe I thought were a bit of a stretch.  Nevertheless, I might have underestimated the dawning of this new movement in a big way.  I was not aware that leaders from the outside would return to help their fellow people.  Egypt is seeing the return of the former IAEA president Mohamed ElBaradei, who thought about running for president in the country anyway, come back with vengeance.  Also, the protests are growing larger everyday, showing some signs of life.

I will admit that both of those are good signs, but they do not mean a change in the country.  Everyone thought 2009 was going to be the year Iran forged ahead with true democracy through the Green Revolution, and we all know how quickly that fizzled in a matter of months.  The appearance of a democratic movement does not mean it actually will take shape.  Protests and burning flags might get the presses attention, but unless there is some substance or a strong leadership base to these various groups not much will happen.  I still hold out hope that reforms will come to pass and democracy will start to take hold in the Middle East, but more will be needed to convince me besides growing numbers of street riots and a good narrative.

Photo Credit: CTV

Graphs from Gallup and the Economist

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Morning Memo: Thursday, January 27

South Korea agrees to military talks with North

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Protests in Egypt Look Like A Copycat of Tunisia

Karzai Opens Parliament With A Call For Unity

South and North Korea To Meet For Talks

Tony Blair Biased Towards Israel According To Documents

Russian President Gives Speech In Davos, Even After Attack

Tunisia's Interim Government Delays Reshuffling Cabinet

CBO Releases Projects For The Deficit

Southern Sudan's Refugee Problem

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

Marc Lynch on Arab Revolutions

William Saletan on Obama's Message

Videos of Note:

Brookings Discussion of the SOTU

Photo Credit: Daily Telegraph

Graphs from the Economist

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Rise of China



This video gives you a sense of where China will be heading in terms of being a super-power over the next century.  A more general point to take away from this lecture is how the U.S. and Europe often misunderstand cultures in foreign policy.  Take Russia as the best example.  Russia has always struggled with western versus Russian identity.  During the Soviet era, this became extremely obvious when it tried to pursue industrial economic policies without a defined middle class.  I think if the U.S. better understood Russian history, dealing with the Soviet Union would have been a much easier task.

The point is that a country's history will guide its policy.  The past really is the best guide to the future.  If the U.S. wants to better understand China in terms of foreign policy, cultural and historical understanding would be its best bet.

What Foreign Policy Topics Should Obama Had Talked About?

Foreign Policy Magazine outlines several interesting areas that Obama should have hit on in his SOTU address last night:


MexicoArguably, the most important foreign-policy question to the United States isn't Iran or Afghanistan or China -- but neighboring Mexico, where nearly 35,000 people have died over the last five years as a result of the raging narcowar. Since Mexican President Felipe Calderón began his crackdown on drug cartels in 2006, Mexico has been transformed -- and not necessarily for the better. The United States is intimately involved in the conflict; American drug users drive demand for the Mexican narcotics trade. Even more directly, 90 percent of the firearms used in the conflict are thought to come from north of the border.
So far, Barack Obama's administration has focused on managing security challenges along the U.S. border, providing Mexico with military assistance, and helping curb the flow of American guns into the south. Last May, the White House also announced that an additional 1,200 U.S. troops would be sent to monitor the border. Obama has visited Mexico, as has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in Mexico on Monday.
Why won't it come up? Because Mexico is a lightning rod, not just because of drug policy but also immigration, somethign both parties have struggled to tackle in recent years. Obama, who has said he wants comprehensive legislation and considered moving forward with a new policy right after the administration floated health care, warned last fall that he's unlikely to be able to find the political support to get it passed anytime soon.

Continue Reading Here...

Morning Memo: Wednesday, January 26


Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Obama Became a Centrist During The SOTU

SOTU and Spending Cuts

The President Wants A "Sputnik Moment"

Fact Check The President's Speech

Iran Rejects Fuel Swap Deal

U.N.'s New Anti-Piracy Measures

General Patraeus Offers Assessment of Afghanistan

Russian Duma Ratifies START

G20 Wants To Tackle Food Prices

Figures of Note:

Thumbnail image for image001.gif

hnwgplaqg0updvdgelxi7g.gif

Opinions of Note:

David Brooks on U.S. Competitiveness

Robert N. Danin on the Palestinian Papers Leak

Videos of Note:

Watch the SOTU

My First Thought: State of the Union

Obama's style during the SOTU was a bit flimsy and not the strongest speech he has given.  The Tuscon speech was definitely better.  Although he did have some good lines.  South Korean teachers are called "nation builders" and an interesting joke about government waste.  He seemed more jovial and congress was much more jolly in their demeanor.  That being said, the speech was a predictable one.  Newspapers across the nation published the theme of speech days before the president would give it.  Competitiveness and infrastructure was definitely the word of the night.

This morning, I officially want to call President Obama a Republican.  I do not mean this in a divisive way, but his proposals are all ideas that have come from the Republicans.  Education starts at home with the parents, eliminating tax loopholes, stopping government waste and getting rid of earmarks, and even his healthcare bill were all once proposals of the Republican Party.  I guess you could say that the Republican revolution has succeeded, except many in the party do not support these ideas anymore. It is sad really.  "The era of big government is over," Bill Clinton once quipped.  Now it seems that Democrats are starting to embrace that idea.

The other aspect of the speech is the nationalist tendencies derived from the speech.  Focusing on competitiveness and American greatness is all "great," but it can get a little messy globally.  The president did a good job of addressing domestic problems, but domestic solutions can create protectionism,causing another global recession.  The president should have focused on making America work with the world at large, instead he used the SOTU as a pep rally.  In a way, it is what the American people needed.  Good for rhetoric, unfortunately it could be harmful for the future.


Photo Credit: New York Times

Graphs from Ezra Klein and Gallup 

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Independent Internationalist Radio Show Jan. 25

Here is my radio show from Tuesday, January 25:

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



Part 4



Part 5

Radio Show

I will be on WRKE 100.3 FM (Roanoke College's radio station) doing my show called The Independent Internationalist from 1-3 pm EST.  Listen in if you get a chance.  You can listen online at wrke.org.

Morning Memo: Tuesday, January 25


Good Morning!

Today is the big day for President Obama

Top Topics:

Terrorist Attack In Russia Kills 35

Economy To Be Main Focus of SOTU

Hillary Clinton Meets With Mexico's President, The Situation Is Getting Messy

U.S. Calls Hezbollah Rise In Lebanon Problematic

Sarkozy's Plans For The G-20

The Davos Global Business Conference Starts: Are You Ready For This?

Portugal's President Re-Elected

Three Senators Want Filibuster Vote

Supreme Court Gossip: Scalia Addresses Tea Party Organization and Thomas' Wife's Financial Dealings

Figures of Note:



Figure

Opinions of Note:

Paul Krugman on Competitiveness Being A Bad Thing

Elliot Abrams on America's New Democracy Promotion Plan

Fun Activity:

State of the Union Drinking Game (if your into that sort of thing)

Videos of Note:

President Obama's Weekly Address

Competitiveness Speech Provides Insight Into SOTU

Reminder: I will be on the radio today, WKRE 100.3 FM, also online at wrke.org from 1:00-3:00 pm EST.  I plan to podcast the show as well.

Photo Credit: The Christian Science Monitor

Graphs from the Economist and Pew Research Center

Monday, January 24, 2011

Ratified

I haven't done this in a while, but here is what I talked about today:

1. My first thought was about defining Obamaism
2. Joe Klein predicts Hillary Clinton's next move
3. Conversation about Tunisia and my thoughts 

Don't Get Your Hopes Up


My pessimistic tone towards the Tunisia coup might damper the party on those who celebrate a good old fashion bloodless, or nearly bloodless, coup in the Arab world, but I believe it to be justified.  Contagion appears to be the buzzword thrown around by the media for its insistence that the overthrow of Mr. Ben Ali in Tunisia will spark the same outrage as the '89 fall of communism throughout Eastern Europe.  I hate to spoil the party, God knows I want democracy in every country around the world, unfortunately that is not happening.

First, this coup in Tunisia looks to have no direction.  Essentially, one man lit himself on fire sparking outrage in the countryside over unfair practices by President Ali's 23 years of dictatorial and one party rule.  Fearing for his life, he fled into exile.  Subsequently, his Prime Minister, and two other party members took his place.  I see very little in terms of opposition leadership or a strong central government.  Unlike the 1979 Iranian Revolution, there is not a leader in exile telling the protesters what to do or a cohesive unit of political parties to form a coalition once they get into power.  Without that, this coup will just be a weekend retreat from autocratic rule.

Second, Tunisia has a specific history and identified border culture that was not drawn by the Europeans after colonization.  That makes their history a little better than some of the other unfortunate groups who lost land and homelands were split by careless map-making.  A unified culture means a more unified country, making Tunisia a more unique case than Algeria or Libya in terms of a place for revolution.

Third, the revolution may not even be democratic.  As mentioned above, the revolution does not have cohesive democracy crusader leading the way to a brighter tomorrow.  There is even talk of the military taking power, not an uncommon story in post colonial African politics.  Democracy may only reign in the country for a week before a dictatorial figure, similar to Ali, takes the reigns.  With this power vacuum, anything is possible.

Finally, our memories of the happy silent collapse of the Soviet Union are more projections on what we want the present to look like.  Belarus just had a fraudulent election and the E.U. appears to be condemning Hungary for a new media restrictions law.  It is not Americanized democracy in Eastern Europe by any stretch of the imagination.  If Tunisia does get the democratic happy ending we all hope for it will not not be Disney, tailor made democratic experiment.  Expect media controls, the banning of political parties, and controversial dismissals of appointed officials.  Oh, and don't forget all the corruption that goes with Middle East democracy, really the best part.  Think of Afghanistan and Iraq to see vivacious corruption in action.

To conclude, do not read too much into this "fairy tale" democratic experiment.  It might not last long.  One other tidbit to chew on might be how the democracy promotion crowd often lauds military engineering for democracy in the Arab world or Vietnam, which often fails and then simultaneously cheers for independent democratic movements to happen in a home-grown fashion.  No one predicted this to occur in Tunisia, we also missed the '89 revolutions, proving that governmental change works best when it occurs organically and not through intervention.  At the same time,  note that we remember the moment when democracy takes hold, but not the hang-over of terrible and rocky governance that happens afterwards.  The folly of the human mind speaks wonders to our understanding of foreign policy.

Photo Credit: Christian Science Monitor 

Tunisia Coup

Joe Klein: Hillary's Next Move

Joe Klein wonders whether Hillary Clinton will stay secretary of state or replace Robert Gates as secretary of defense:


The most daunting piece of real estate in modern American politics is any podium right after Bill Clinton has relinquished it. The guy is on fire these days, freed from the constraints of elective office and the shackles of the prepared text. And so no one who attended the memorial service for master diplomat Richard Holbrooke envied the lot of Hillary Clinton, who had to follow her husband to the podium and conclude a program that Holbrooke — a fervent connoisseur of speechifying, especially about himself — would have loved. She had to do this jet-lagged out of her skull, having just returned from an intense six-day swirl through the Middle East, and after delivering a monster speech about China that morning at the State Department.
She more than held her own, if a bit more formally than her husband; she is, after all, the nation's highest ranking diplomat these days. But she was a stalwart friend and defender of Holbrooke's, and she communicated her appreciation elegantly. She was also extremely funny — an underused weapon in her arsenal — describing the infamous Holbrookian persistence: "He would follow me onto a stage as I was about to give a speech, or into my hotel room, or on at least one occasion, into a ladies' room in Pakistan." (See pictures of Hillary Clinton on her diplomatic mission to Russia.)
All of which started me thinking once more about Hillary Clinton's character and career trajectory. She is one of those politicians you can actually watch grow in office. She begins each new assignment quietly, studying the territory, making a few mistakes along the way, but then she gradually gains control of her portfolio and masters it. This was true of her stint on the Senate Armed Services Committee: the most forbidding panjandrums of the uniformed military came to respect her expertise, especially David Petraeus, a particular favorite of hers. It was also true of her presidential campaign, in which she started off stiff and wound up kicking back whiskey shots in steelworker taverns, a woman of the people. (See pictures of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.)
And it's certainly true now, as Secretary of State. She began the assignment with some well-acknowledged skills. After her globe-trotting years as First Lady, she knew how to be an effective public diplomat. But she still had a lot to learn about diplomatic strategy and negotiation. She made mistakes and still does on occasion. (Her Middle East trip was marred by her statement that Jared Lee Loughner was "an extremist.") But her confidence has grown, and her public statements are sharper. Indeed, she has — belatedly — emerged as the Obama Administration's leading voice on human rights. During the week that ended with the Holbrooke memorial, she told the leaders of the Middle East that their countries were "sinking into the sand" by not moving toward democratic reforms (a timely message given the upheaval in Tunisia). And then, in a particularly gutsy moment, she lamented, "The longer China represses freedom ... the longer that Nobel Prize winners' empty chairs in Oslo will remain a symbol of a great nation's unrealized potential." (She was referring to China's refusal to allow the imprisoned Liu Xiaobo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.) (See pictures of Liu Xiaobo.)
There is talk now that Clinton's next step will be to slide over to the Pentagon and replace Robert Gates, who is expected to resign as Secretary of Defense later this year. It would, in some ways, be a natural progression for her. It would be another first — the first woman SecDef. It would be an extremely valuable credential if she chooses to run for President in 2016. She certainly has the respect of the military and knowledge of the issues. (Comment on this story.)
Continue Reading Here...

Morning Memo: Monday, January 24

FILE - House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Va. makes a statement to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, in this March 25, 2010 file photo. House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans' programs from spending cuts in their party's

Good Morning!

1 day until the State of the Union

Top Topics:

Obama Will Pursue A Centrist Message in State of the Union

Document Release: An Inside Look At Israel-Palestine Peace Process

Top Irish Officials Will Meet Today To Discuss Making Election Earlier

U.N. Tries To Keep Afghanistan Government Together

Iran's President Proposes More Nuclear Talks After Istanbul Talks Fail

AU Considering Sanctions Against Ivory Coast

Albanian Tensions Escalate In Riots

Southern Sudan Will Probably Become A New Nation

Central African Republic Holds Election

Senator Buzzkill: Mitch McConnell Will Not Inner-Mingle With Democrats During State of the Union

Figures of Note:

Second-Year Job Approval Averages of Elected Presidents, Gallup Polls, Eisenhower to Obama

Opinions of Note:

Robert Kagan on U.S. Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

Benjamin H. Friedman on Congress and Spending Cuts

Videos of Note:

Erin Burnett Talks Down Debt Hysteria

Keith Olbermann Leaves Countdown

My First Thought: Obamaism

The debate that has become all the rage throughout the week has the implied question: what is Obamaism?  Is he pro or anti business?  Can he triangulate with Republicans and Democrats like Clinton?  Can he bring back  the magic of his campaign days?  The State of the Union on Tuesday will be the litmus test for the president to face his opposition.  Obamaism has not been clearly defined, as you can tell from the questions above.  The speech will most likely define a narrative, but not produce any policy specifics.  Wonks will hate it, but the American people will probably enjoy it.  The contrast will be even starker when Rep. Paul Ryan, the wonk king will give the official Republican response.  His counter-speech will most likely be filled with numbers and statistics that will make calculus class look exciting.

Compared with drab Ryan, Obama has flare and great rhetorical skills.  He must combine the great elements of statistics with his amazing rhetorical style to give a kick-ass speech.  Obamaism will not just be a policy idea, but an image exported from a specific speech.   All good policy ideas are best explained through good policy speeches.  What is Obamaism?  The answer will lye in Obama's performance on Tuesday.

Photo Credit: Washington Post 

Graph from Gallup

Friday, January 21, 2011

Column (1/21/11): The Great American Tragedy

The devastating events two weeks ago in Tucson brought a tear to the eye of most Americans who watched the in horror as an attack on a public official and her fellow constituents who came out to support here reminded everyone about the dangers of living in a free and democratic society. Only hours after this “American tragedy” struck, a storm of blame entered the twenty-four hour news cycle and the blogosphere. Some on the left blamed the “vitriolic” political rhetoric during the last election cycle. Others blamed lax gun laws in the state of Arizona and a poor mental health system for this unspeakable horror. 

After the storm calmed, to some degree anyway, the facts made the rapacious finger pointing look silly. The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner did not subscribe to any particular political ideology, beyond the odd ideas from the delusional world in which he lived. Neither the right nor the left’s heated rhetoric gave the shooter the ammunition, no pun intended, to carry out this vile act. Furthermore, the debate over gun permits and finding ways to help the mentally ill among us without infringing on civil rights always happens whenever a tragedy of this magnitude occurs. Yet, very little is ever done, even in the face of another looming tragedy we all know could occur at any moment.

 Tragedies have an interesting effect on the American public and the public discourse. First, outside of our everyday politics and partisan bickering, the American people have an astoundingly resilient constitution to handle terrible events. Rallying together for a common cause, most politicians know they must be the model for public to look up to in times of national pain. Historical events galvanize this American tradition very extensively. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln did not stop the reconstruction efforts in the South to continue to bring the union together after the worst war on American soil. President John F. Kennedy’s untimely death did not stop President Lyndon Johnson from carrying out the missions of the Kennedy presidency. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 might of have left a scar on the American consciousness, but it did not waiver the country from moving forward. 

Continue Reading Here...

Read More Headlines From The Brackety-Ack

Jon Stewart Talks Global Chaos


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Global Chaos Round Up
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook



Morning Memo: Friday, January 21

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama welcome President of China Hu Jintao for a State Dinner at the White House in Washington, January 19, 2011. REUTERS/Jim Young

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Protesters In Tunisia Want Former Ruling Party Banned

Fresh Talks With Iran Begin Today, Expect Little

Lebanon's Prime Minister Tries To Make A Comeback

Conditions Set: Unless Haiti Has Credible Elections, The U.S. Will Cutoff Aid

White House Supports North and South Korea Talks

Sneak Peak: Southern Sudanese Landslide Vote For Independence

E.U. Will Boycott Belarus Inauguration

The U.S. Wants Continued Pressure On Belarus

Israel Will Remove Infrastructure From Gaza

The GOP Wants To Cut $90 Billion

Figures of Note:

Outlook for President Obama's Job Performance Over Next Two Years, January 2011

Outlook for U.S. Economy Over Next Two Years, January 2011

Bottom Line: More adults have confidence in Obama than the economy

Opinions of Note:

Volker Perthes on Optimism For Iran Seeking A Deal

Leslie Gelb Assesses Hu Jintao's Visit

My First Thought: Just Dance

It is not often that I can apply a Lady Gaga song to international politics, but this is a phrase that I cannot resist.  Today marks the continuation of the U.S.-Iran talks in Istanbul.  The dance will continue between these two countries.  After a virus was implanted by the U.S., allegedly, into the Iranian nuclear system to stifle their ambitions, Iran was a bit peeved.  Inside the Islamic state, the heat is on.  The Iranian government just lifted the oil and gas subsidies, increasing the price of gas and other products.  People are angry.  The sanctions targeted Iran's petroleum sector.  When asked about this, the Iranian authorities denied the sanctions had anything to do with their lifting of the subsidies.  In fact, their response was just the opposite: bring it on!

To put it simply, Iran does not want to admit defeat.  They will continue to use their nuclear program to anger the rest of the world and have their people suffer because of it.  In the end, today's meeting will lead to another meeting, then another meeting, and another meeting.  All these two countries will do is dance around each other and not negotiate anything worthwhile.  Like a broken record, the same rhetoric will be flared from both sides and nothing will get accomplished.

Photo Credit: Reuters

Graphs from Gallup

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Morning Memo: Thursday, January 20

President Barack Obama shakes hands with China's President Hu Jintao during a state arrival ceremony, Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2011, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington.

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Hu Jintao Gets A Big State Welcome

News Conference Reveals Differences

Panel of Experts Claim U.S. Should Be Cautious During Tunisia's Tumultuous Time

In New Poll Southern Sudanese Back Independence

New U.N. Resolution Condemns Israeli Settlements

E.U. Parliament Protests Hungary's New Media Restriction Law

Berlusconi Denies Abuse of Powers

Changes Being Made To Vietnam's Politburo

House Votes To Repeal Healthcare Law

Figures of Note:

qorpptsshuioribmzsfm_g

Opinions of Note:

Dana Milbank on Hu Jintao's Pres Problem

Sharon K. Horn on China's Human Rights Abuses

Videos of Note:

Obama and Hu's Press Conference

My First Thought: No New Policy Changes

The typical answers were given and the same regalia ball was thrown for the new man Washington, but beyond the banal foreign dignitary presentation not much will change between the U.S. and China.  Not surprising, Obama and Hu agreed to continue working together on various global issues of importance.  Obama also pressured China to increase the value of its currency and stop human rights abuses.  The press even had a field day with the President of the PRC when they caught him off guard with a question about the regime's abysmal human rights record.

So, the summary of yesterday's event is basically: the same promised cooperation, the U.S. bitching at China for pursing its own self interested economic policies of currency manipulation and continued violation of U.S. intellectual property rights, and the press is still angry at the President for working with China despite its human rights problem and complaining that China has a human rights problem.  Essentially, there were hardly any new policies to come from that meeting.  No new agreements on North Korea were established and no specifics were addressed about how China or the U.S. would address any of these problems mentioned above.  I predicted that only a vague communique, if any, would come from this meeting.  I was not expecting a complete 180 in U.S.-China relations, but at least a stronger sense of urgency would have been nice.

Photo Credit: Boston Globe

Graph from Gallup

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

How To Be Civilized

Elizabeth Lesser talks about civilizing our world starts with taking people to lunch.

Morning Memo: Wednesday, January 19

 

FILE - In this Feb. 13, 2008 file photo, South Korean nuclear envoy Chun Yung-woo speaks during a press conference at the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, South Korea. Chun, South Korea's chief presidential adviser on national security and foreign affairs, warned in an interview to be broadcast Monday, Jan. 17, 2011, that impoverished North Korea could bring its own collapse if it keeps pouring scarce national resources into its nuclear weapons program and military.

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Hu Jintao Arrives In U.S.

What They'll Cover

Iran Wants To Be Treated Like An Equal At Upcoming Istanbul Talks

Ivory Coast Economy Badly Bruised After Political Crisis

Russia's President Visits The West Bank

Ireland's Prime Minister Wins Vote of Confidence

Taiwan Tested Missiles During Hu Jinato's Visit

Major Earthquake Hits Pakistan

Figures of Note:

Gallup's U.S. Unemployment Rate, January 2010-January 2011 Trend

Opinions of Note:

Jaswant Singh on Pakistan's Troubles

Bruce Riedel says Libya Could Be Next For Revolution After Tunisia

My First Thought: My Radio Show

Here is the link to listen to my radio program yesterday!

Photo Credit: Sydney Morning Herald

Graph from Gallup

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Independent Internationalist Radio Show

This is my radio show for this week, I hope you enjoy!

1st Part


2nd Part


3rd Part

Morning Memo: Tuesday, January 18

Jean-Claude Duvalier

Good Morning!

1 day until Hu Jintao visits the White House, I look forward to a good currency debate!

Top Topics:

"Baby Doc" Will Return To Haiti

New Government Forms In Tunisia

What China and U.S. Want From Upcoming Meeting

Italy's Silvio Berlusconi's Prostitution Trouble

AU's Envoy Tries To Solve Ivory Coast Conflict

Israel Announces More Settlements In Occupied Territories

Sudan's Referendum Commission Supports Vote

ASEAN Supports Removing Sanctions From Burma

Ireland's Crucial Vote

Republicans Plan To Tone Down Political Rhetoric For Health Care Debate

Figures of Note:

Who do you want to have more influence over the direction the nation takes in the next year -- Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress? Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress? 2010-2011 Trend



Opinions of Note:

Paul Krugman on the Republicans' War on Logic

Christopher Hitchens on Tunisia's Maturity

My First Thought: It Takes Two

The upcoming visit of China's foreign dignitary Hu Jintao sets a solemn mood of apprehension in Washington.  Reaction from both sides of the aisle over how President Obama should handle Mr. Hu's demands of the U.S. ranges from tough talking Republicans and Democrats who want to either put sanctions on China for not increasing the value of its currency or at least sent a harsh condemnation, to the soft spoken parts of both parties who believe negotiating with China is best.  I put myself in the latter camp.  We need a strong, firm grip with China, but not too strong as to defuse our relationship with the country.  Why such different reactions from both sides?

The answer lyes in China's enormous power.  Think about it.  How the U.S. handles Mr. Hu tomorrow will dictate what China does with its currency, how it handles North Korea, and even if it will continue to ramp up its military.  China is a major super-power.  The term "rising" need not apply anymore.  China wants to sit at the big kids table in international diplomacy.  Denying them that right will only make them angrier.  China is not like the Soviet Union.  The U.S. needs China for trade and crucial diplomatic engagements.  We are not in a Cold War with China.  It takes the U.S.'s casual ability to keep the tiger at bay by being nice to it and, in return, China must play along with the U.S.  Both nations are interlocked economically and in international politics.  Neither side is over the top with wanting to ramp up pressure on China, but since the U.S. has never seen an ally who plays both enemy and friend, except for Pakistan, and is a major super-power, everyone is utterly confused.  Remember, it takes both nations to make the world go round, but only one to stop it completely.  Washington must proceed with caution or else anger a desperately needed ally.

Photo Credit: Daily Telegraph 

Graphs come from Gallup and the Economist

Monday, January 17, 2011

Radio Show

I'll be on the radio tomorrow (Tuesday) from 1-3 pm EST on WRKE 100.3 FM, also online at wrke.org, doing my radio show.  It is very similar to what I discuss on this blog.  Check it out!

Friday, January 14, 2011

Short Vacation


With my winter break winding down, I thought I would take a little break from blogging for a few days.  I will start blogging again on Tuesday morning (1/18) with the "Morning Memo."  I'll also post about my radio show as soon as I find out the time!

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Ratified

Here is what I talked about today:

1. My first thought was about Sarah Palin's blood libel comments
2. My thoughts on Obama's speech
3. Jon Stewart talks about Sudan
4. Global temperatures are rising
5.. The global economy is getting better slowly, very slowly

Good News And Bad News For the World Economy

The World Bank just released a report about its predictions for the world economy.  Marred in economic lingo, there are still some very good points clearly indicated by the report.  First, growth rates for developing countries will reach 6% average for GDP, while developed countries will only see a 2.4% growth rate.  The trend is not surprising, as the developed countries stall the developing world can catch up in manufacturing.  Also, the income gap in most developing countries will be narrowed, which is also good news.  In fact in 2011, most developing countries will count for almost half of global growth.

High debt will continue to be a problem, there is no ailing solution to this problem.  The Euro zone will go the worst problem because each country in the Euro zone is tied to one currency with different economic problems.  Ireland and Greece were already bailed out by the E.U. and IMF, Portugal and Spain could be next.  Thankfully, some countries, like Germany, instituted structural reforms to their labor markets, reducing their debt and making their economy more sustainable for the future.

The biggest problem will be protectionism.  This means a country will high tariff rates to keep good in their country to spur growth.  While that works for the nation that is exporting less, it hurts global growth.  President Obama has warned the world about this in many of his speeches on the economy, but it is bound to happen anyway.  Linked to that problem will be the rise of food prices because of protectionist measures.  Former President Jimmy Carter once lamented, "Hungary people are not peaceful people."  High food prices makes the commodity more scarce, leading to food riots.

What does one make of all this?  The world will continue to see growth in the developing countries of the world, leading to a narrowing of the income gap, which is good.  On the other side, the developed world will continue to see slow growth and the world economy is dependent on those countries to rally strength.  All of this means some good and bad news for the economy.  Slowly the growth will happen, very slowly.

Climate Change Graph of the Day


This graph points to overall rising temperatures from the 1880 until 2010.  Now, it might not seem like a huge leap to most, but to climate scientists 1 or 2 degrees is a big deal.  Oftentimes when people talk about climate change not occurring they will say "we had a huge snow storm, so it is not occurring," but there is a big difference between weather and climate.  Climate is a pattern of temperatures over time.  So, you can have a big snow storm, and the temperatures will change.  The average for the year can also be higher than previous. Discounting the problem of global warming does not make it go away.  

Jon Stewart Analyzes Sudan's Referendum

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Inde-Sudan 2011
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire Blog</a>The Daily Show on Facebook