A New Mexico morning sun is rising, emanating glorious pinks and oranges over the land. Inside of Glenn's Bakery near downtown Gallup, the tortilla machine is working at full-tilt, cranking out wonderful, golden brown tortillas, one after another. Yes, another day is beginning, and we've got all the political blogging you need for your Saturday. Strap in, and enjoy the ride, as we come to you full speed from Glenn's in this Saturday morning post.Bush Fails in Effort to Increase Saudi Oil Supply:
In a not so unexpected development Thursday, President Bush, after talks with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, failed to win assurances that that state would increase production and inject fresh supply into the market in order to quell rising global oil costs. Coming on the heels of Congress' decision to halt daily additions to the U.S. strategic oil reserve, the president's inability to win guarantees from his Saudi counterpart seems to vindicate proponents of the congressional measure, who argue that the U.S. cannot wait for international oil producers to suddenly become more benevolent in their business dealings with global consumers in order to halt rising costs.
Speaking to reporters after meeting with King Abdullah, Bush said that the talks had gone well and been cordial. Abdullah added that, while he and the U.S. President hadn't come to an agreement regarding increased oil production, there had been no table slamming or ill will.
Given the last seven-plus years of relative inactivity on the practice, President Bush's attempted foray into the diplomatic realm is somewhat unfortunately. Two unfortunate elements of his attempt, however, are that it came in an attempt to win for the U.S. a cheaper version of a polluting and non-renewable form of energy and was, more than that, altogether unsuccessful. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that actually cut the mustard when it came to international negotiation? With that question in mind, let's check in on 'Election '08'.
Obama Issues Bold Challenge to McCain on Foreign Affairs:
Wading into an arena typically thought to represent one of Senator McCain's most pointed advantages in a potential head-to-head contest with Democratic front-runner Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator said he looked forward to a serious debate with the presumptive GOP nominee on the issue of global affairs.
Speaking to an audience in Sioux Falls, South Dakota at what was supposed to be a talk on rural issues, Obama responded commandingly to comments made by President Bush during a speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, in which he indirectly accused Obama of a misguided approach to foreign policy and willingness to hold unconditional talks with terrorist networks.
During his Knesset speech, Bush claimed, in a veiled shot at Obama, that 'Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along'.
Obama responded by saying that 'He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler...Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.'
Quite contrarily to Bush's misleading accusations, Obama has been unbending in his stated unwillingness to hold talks with terrorist groups like Hamas, repeatedly affirming 'that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas.' However, both Bush and McCain attempted to peg the Democratic front-runner to a soft and worryingly naive approach to foreign affairs.
Obama responded in a decisive and comprehensive manner, rebuffing their contentions on at least three points.
First, he countered by arguing that, historically, innovative diplomatic approaches have often been responsible for the U.S.' most impressive diplomatic feats, citing the examples of President Kennedy's overtures to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, as well as Nixon's trailblazing efforts to engage Chinese leader Mao Zedong.
Secondly, Obama opined that 'conventional wisdom' on foreign policy, such as the brand that Bush and McCain tout as their own, has recently led the United States into a disastrous state of affairs, both at home and abroad. He argued that 'The American people are going to look at the evidence and say, 'We don't get a sense this has been a wise foreign policy or a strong foreign policy or a tough foreign policy', speaking in reference to the Bush-led misadventure in Iraq, which has cost the U.S. upwards of $500 billion and has seriously damaged U.S. standing in the eyes of the international community. McCain's hawkish, 'more troops on the ground' solution to many of the country's foreign security issues, Obama rightly contends, represents more of the same failed Bush doctrine that has further indebted the U.S. and is responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, both American and otherwise.
Thirdly, Obama makes the case that, in one of its few diplomatic successes, that is, winning a de facto peace and cooperation accord with former pariah state, Libya, Bush employed the type of forward-looking outreach strategies endorsed by the Illinois Senator.
After an aggressive outreach effort, in which leaders in Washington and London aggressively, if quietly, courted an alliance with Libyan leader Muammar al Qudhafi in order to win his cooperation in the Western-sponsored 'War on Terrorism'. Just over two years ago, Bush culminated the courtship process, which had begun in late 2003, by restoring full and normalized diplomatic ties to Libya in the form of 'Presidential Determination No. 2006-14'.
Interestingly, through its diplomatic offensive, the Bush Administration actually succeeded in getting Qadhafi to both fess up to possessing weapons of mass destruction and committing to eliminate its WMD program neither of which were accomplished in the case of Iraq, despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi, lost. Instead, reaching out to Libya by way of the negotiating table as opposed to the barrel of a gun has brought a leader previously thought to be one of the world's most ardently anti-West critics into alignment with a key pillar of the Bush Administration's foreign policy agenda.
This point, of course, was notably absent from Bush's speech to the Knesset, in which he lambasted experimental diplomacy as both dangerous and incapable of bearing significant fruit. It seems quixotic that President Bush would not more readily tout one of the few successes of an otherwise disastrous tenure--then again, quixoticism has been at the heart of his presidency.
Real Talk on Obama's Foreign Policy: Innovation, Positivism, and True Security
Reading between the lines of the current tough talk between Obama, Bush, and McCain in relation to foreign affairs, it quickly becomes apparent that, today, the U.S. stands at a crossroads regarding the way it sees, and is seen by, the world. This reality has serious national security implications, and both Obama and McCain are well-advised to make international relations key pillars of their electoral platforms. With that said, voters in November should support the candidate whose ideas stand the greatest chance of improving the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the world and, by extension, enhancing security at home. On this point, Obama has a clear advantage.
Principally, it cannot be ignored that Senator Obama would enter Oval Office with a few inherited advantages as it relates to international dealings. As a Democratic president, his election would represent a very clear break from the Bush Doctrine and earn him instant credibility amongst foreign leaders, even those in ally countries, who've grown weary of Bush's strong-handed, at times barbarous diplomatic approach. Moreover, as the country's first Commander in Chief of a mixed-ethnic heritage, Obama would inspire new international confidence in the strength of the 'American ideal', one that used to mean real opportunity for one and all to meet their full potential, but has been cast devastating and continuous blows by Bush's pigheadedness on financial, political, and social affairs. A Barack Obama presidency offers the U.S. instant improvements in its global image.
By engaging adversarial leaders and seeking out common interests shared by the U.S. and countries with whom relations have fallen into disrepair during the Bush tenure, Barack Obama would outperform his opponents in an area once perceived as a potential shortcoming: the creation of true and lasting security. But it is just this brand of security that the Senator's more thoughtful approach to diplomacy would help to build. Building walls, levying military attacks, and cutting off negotiations engender hatred and resentment , rather than fostering the type of understanding and cooperation necessary for the U.S. to build new and sustainable foreign partnerships.
Voters need to ask themselves serious questions about the real meaning of security. When they do, they will see that breaking with the Bush philosophy, which says that those who see the world in a different way than he does, offer little in the way of potentially meaningful cooperation for the U.S. They will see that Barack Obama offers positive solutions to the country's most vexing challenges as regards foreign affairs. And they will see that it is time for a new way of doing business at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Signing off from Glenn's, this is the New Mexico Progressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment