US Politics

As the New Year begins and President Obama prepares for his State of the Union address, this is an appropriate moment to make some observations about his first twelve months in office.

1) The euphoria of the election and inauguration of the first African-American President has not been sustained. That level of energy and euphoria is inherently limited. Nevertheless, the brilliance of candidate Obama and the enthusiasm of his supporters were far from the performance of the President and his followers as well as the Democratic Party. Candidate Obama was far superior to President Obama.

2) The strategy of moving on many fronts – climate change, health care, finances, Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan – was difficult if not impossible to fulfil. The drawn out decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan seems a simple continuation of George Bush’s War on Terror, while the health reform bill in whatever form it passes will be an important step forward for millions of Americans, although less than many expected.

3) More credit should be given the Administration for stabilizing the economic crisis, but the high unemployment rate, long-term debt problems and greed of the financial community have taken the gloss away from a considerable success. While the President would like to focus on unemployment and fiscal responsibility in the second year, the security problem arising out of the Christmas bombing attempt might keep the attention of the Administration away from domestic considerations. Fierce Republican opposition in Congress has shown that the Administration has not been able to be inclusive. Continuing politicization could be fatal for future legislation.

4) The standing of the United States in the world has certainly improved post George Bush, but the decision to send troops to Afghanistan, the Chinese refusal to cooperate on climate change, and the lack of forceful leadership from President Obama domestically and internationally - such as in the Middle East - has seen the continued fragmentation of global authority and diminishing U.S. power. Obama may be the world’s biggest rock star, but he is far from the world’s leader, and we are far from the excitement of the Cairo speech.

President Obama gave himself a B+ rating for his overall performance in the first year. His popularity numbers are down, with progressives and conservatives alike expressing disappointment. Too much was promised, too much was expected. Barack Obama must accept that he represents and became the representative of a generation of hope. If he cannot live up to those expectations, if he doesn’t give himself a straight A, then he has only himself to blame. As many expected, he did not ace his first-year exam.

The recent Swiss vote on banning minarets has caused more consternation outside of Switzerland than most Swiss would care to admit. While there have been endless debates about the role of direct democracy and the limits of popular sovereignty, not enough attention has focused on the perception of Switzerland from outside except for crass calculations of potential financial losses and Oskar Freysinger on Al Jazeera.

A New York Times editorial began with the one word sentence “Disgraceful”. The Financial Times highlighted the tarnishing of Switzerland’s reputation, something much deeper than image or that which can be polished by public relations firms. Indeed, the moral authority of a country that prides itself on its tolerance through multiculturalism, third party arbitration and the rule of law, has taken an enormous hit. But, the minaret issue is not an isolated phenomenon; the last ten years have seen the scandal of Nazi gold, Swissair’s decline, UBS’ implosion and the lifting of the veil of banking secrecy, the Libya fiasco and the Polanski arrest. Yes, they are not all similar. But in terms of image and reputation, they have a great deal in common.

Perhaps the nadir of this tarnishing was the Jon Stewart Comedy Central broadcast of December 3, 2009. The show is immensely popular in the United States for its political satire. This particular airing began with a devastating review of the advertisements and public comments by those in favor of the minaret ban. Intermingled with the current controversy were analogies to Hitler and Switzerland’s actions during World War II. But then it got even worse. Reporter Jon Oliver did an interview with the Swiss Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Peter Mauer, one of the most respected Swiss representatives. Oliver made fun of neutrality, pushing Mauer to take sides on a number of issues. With references to Hitler and the Swiss position during World War II, Oliver left the speechless Ambassador with little room to explain the subtleties of legal neutrality for a small country surrounded by large neighbors. Perhaps the Ambassador should have declined the invitation, for what remains from the broadcast is the impression of a hypocritical country that prides itself on a superficial public morality that hides its true nature - somewhat similar to a sovereign Tiger Woods.

Image and reputation are not exactly the same. But, both the image and reputation of Switzerland have been constructed over centuries. Those concerned with the last ten years have their work cut out for them to deal with their reconstruction. Freysinger is having his 15 minutes of glory, totally unaware of what he has started and the ugliness it has unleashed for those who care about Switzerland and what it has stands for.

President Obama has just finished his first trip as President to Asia. While meetings in Japan and Korea were important on issues such as army bases and North Korean nuclear proliferation, most attention was focused on his visit to China. Would he be able to convince the Chinese to revalue their currency? Would there be increased cooperation on halting Iran’s nuclear development? Would he press the Chinese on human rights? Would there be a new era of U.S.- Chinese cooperation through a G2?

At roughly the same time as President Obama’s trip, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was making the media rounds with her new book. While she has resigned as Governor of Alaska and made no commitment to run for any office in 2012, Ms. Palin has been able to elicit considerable buzz across America.

Is there any relationship between the two events?

It is obvious that the President’s trip was not the success he envisioned. During the President’s first overseas trip to Europe, he was welcomed as a new hero with rock star celebrity. Finish the era of George Bush and the ugly American; Barack Obama represented enormous hope for a new way forward for the United States and the world. This time in Asia, he was welcomed as an American President of interest, but one who could not dictate his wishes as the unique superpower leader.

It would be obvious and banal to say that the Asians treated him as a weak President. Certainly they are watching his agonizing decision-making process over Afghanistan. Certainly they are watching his difficulty in convincing the Congress to pass major health care reform. And certainly they are aware of the increasing debt of the United States as well as the shockingly high unemployment figures. He went to China as a borrower visiting his most important lender.

The Asians may also be watching the Palin phenomenon. For behind the vacuous statements of the rogue politician is the growing feeling that the American population is tiring of lofty rhetoric and the good feeling of electing the first African-American to high office. The latest polls show Obama’s approval rating under 50% for the first time. Palin touches a populist chord in the U.S. – as the MCG does in Geneva – that bears careful attention. And the Asians’ perception of President Obama’s limitations may have a cascading effect on U.S positioning around the world.

President George W. Bush considered himself The Decider. In the famous press conference of April 2006, he declared “I am the decider and I decide what’s best,” referring to his support of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense as well his role in decision-making for the government. President Bush made it clear that he was in charge, that he was responsible for all major decisions.

President Obama has recently made decisions, and the process and results of the decision-making process are certainly much different from his predecessor. He has agonized for months over sending more troops to Afghanistan. The process of decision-making has been played out with a wide range of voices and numerous meetings leaked to the press. Even the top military commander, General McChrystal, went public with details of his confidential report.

The lack of clear decision-making is evident in two major conferences. The attendance of the President at the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference and the U.S. position on climate change were not clear until just before the Conference. Similar indecision concerned the Second Review Conference of the Ottawa Treaty on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and the Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction in Cartagena. The U.S. finally decided to attend, but will not sign the Treaty nor stop their production of mines. In the cases of Copenhagen and Cartagena, the Obama Administration teases with its last minute presence, but has taken no leadership in making firm commitments to real change. The U.S. will be at both conferences, but will not commit.

Finally, President Obama had his first official State Dinner for Indian Prime Minister Singh just having returned from his first Asian trip. Having tried to enlist the Chinese in a sort of G2 global governance, President Obama tried to assuage the Indians with pomp and circumstance at the White House, but again no concrete change or results as he tries to play both sides.

When George Bush was President we complained that he was an emotional decider who did not fully appreciate all sides of an issue. Is President Obama the intellectual and emotional opposite, one who understands too many of the possible consequences of his actions and becomes paralyzed by all the possibilities? Is he The Undecider?

President Obama has just finished his first trip as President to Asia. While meetings in Japan and Korea were important on issues such as army bases and North Korean nuclear proliferation, most attention was focused on his visit to China. Would he be able to convince the Chinese to revalue their currency? Would there be increased cooperation on halting Iran’s nuclear development? Would he press the Chinese on human rights? Would there be a new era of U.S.- Chinese cooperation through a G2?

At roughly the same time as President Obama’s trip, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was making the media rounds with her new book. While she has resigned as Governor of Alaska and made no commitment to run for any office in 2012, Ms. Palin has been able to elicit considerable buzz across America.

Is there any relationship between the two events?

It is obvious that the President’s trip was not the success he envisioned. During the President’s first overseas trip to Europe, he was welcomed as a new hero with rock star celebrity. Finish the era of George Bush and the ugly American; Barack Obama represented enormous hope for a new way forward for the United States and the world. This time in Asia, he was welcomed as an American President of interest, but one who could not dictate his wishes as the unique superpower leader.

It would be obvious and banal to say that the Asians treated him as a weak President. Certainly they are watching his agonizing decision-making process over Afghanistan. Certainly they are watching his difficulty in convincing the Congress to pass major health care reform. And certainly they are aware of the increasing debt of the United States as well as the shockingly high unemployment figures. He went to China as a borrower visiting his most important lender.

The Asians may also be watching the Palin phenomenon. For behind the vacuous statements of the rogue politician is the growing feeling that the American population is tiring of lofty rhetoric and the good feeling of electing the first African-American to high office. The latest polls show Obama’s approval rating under 50% for the first time. Palin touches a populist chord in the U.S. – as the MCG does in Geneva – that bears careful attention. And the Asians’ perception of President Obama’s limitations may have a cascading effect on U.S positioning around the world.

Candidate Obama often talked of the potential for transformation, for radical change. The slogan “Yes we can” had all levels of positive implications. What was missing in the campaign was a clear strategy to lay out what that transformation and radical change would be, let alone what we could do. Certainly the personality of Barack Obama was itself a transformation and change if not proof of what had been transformed in American race relations. Yes, we, citizens of the United States did something when he was elected. And, yes, his election itself was a transformation and radical change.

President Obama’s trip to Japan and China represents transformation and change, but not necessarily positive transformation and change for the United States. In Japan, the President had to explain why American troops should continue to be stationed in Okinawa. The troops’ presence is a vestige of World War II, just as are American troops in Germany. The people of Japan are hostile to the presence, not the least because of outrageous behavior by some of the soldiers. Whereas U.S. soldiers were welcomed at the end of World War II as positive occupiers – how different from Iraq and Afghanistan today – they have obviously outlived their welcome. U.S. presence in Japan is a force projection by the United States that has less and less positive resonance in Japan.

As for China, President Obama must convince Chinese authorities to continue lending to the United States. The power relations between the two countries have shifted. Yes, they still need each other, but because of economic dependence on China, the United States can no longer lecture the Chinese on human rights or how they should govern. Everyone knows that the U.S. is dependent on Chinese lending, and that there would be catastrophic consequences if the Chinese sold off their dollar reserves.

President Obama is not to blame for these transformations and changes. I am sure he is more than aware of the changing power relations in the world. But, for the American people, these changes are certainly not what they bargained for. The problem for President Obama is to continue giving positive implications of change to the American people while negotiating new relations based on reduced American power. His Asian agenda confirms those changes.

President Obama is the first truly modern President, or is he? By modern President, I mean he seems to be the first President sensitive to his wife of comparable intellectual abilities and actively involved in raising his two daughters. President Obama is extremely popular among female voters because he appears to understand the shifting relation between men and women. He is a devoted husband and father, but not in the patriarchal sense we have traditionally associated with the first family nor in philandering. He seems to get it.

In his appointments, he has been extremely sensitive to gender issues. The first nominee for the Supreme Court was a woman, Sonia Sotomayor. And his appointments in the field of foreign affairs have been equally gender sensitive. From Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations to Esther Brimmer as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations to the recent nomination of Betty King as Ambassador to International Organizations in Geneva, he has radically changed the diplomatic glass ceiling in gender as well as race.

Given these sensitivities and appointments, as well as his close working relation with Valerie Jarrett as his special advisor, why has there been so much negative media coverage of his recent basketball game with “the boys”? The argument, as we understand it, is that President Obama is comfortable with women, but that his closest inner circle is still men with whom he has a fraternity brother relationship. Much publicity has been given to his golfing partners, even going so far as the NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd expressing jealousy that a male colleague had passed several hours with the President on the golf course.

Is any of this relevant to the pressing issues of the day? The President is agonizing over sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Millions of Americans remain without health insurance. Do we really care who plays golf or basketball with the President? The answer is yes and no. We, citizens of the United States and the world, would love to give President Obama our unswerving loyalty. But, we don’t really know who he is. If he postures as the first modern President, but is really a traditional figure, then the radical change he promised is hypocrisy.

He has promised change, and, I guess, that includes with whom he plays golf and basketball. But, do we really care if he plays golf and basketball at all? Are sports so ingrained in the American psyche that we demand a jock as President? I would prefer a more serious discussion on Afghanistan, health insurance and poverty than knowing with whom the President plays golf or basketball. There are always more reporters covering the Super Bowl than the war in Afghanistan.
Tennis anyone?

Now that the Dow Jones has climbed back to over 10,000, one would expect a huge sigh of relief if not celebrations. Banners should be flying; Democrats should be crowing that the stimulus package worked; President Obama should be announcing mission accomplished. Surprisingly, none of this is taking place. For, rather than focusing on the climbing Dow Jones, the general public is concerned with two other figures, the 9.8% unemployment rate and the record bonuses being announced by JP Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

What we have here are two very different concepts of reality. On the one hand, trickle-down theory says that if one lowers taxes and the wealthy get wealthier, they will create jobs allowing money to trickle down from the wealthy to workers. Improvements in the business sector should lead to rises in employment, Wall Street helps Main Street. But, this is not happening. The tax payers’ money has been used to bail out the banks only to see the money being used for bonuses instead of creating jobs. There has been no radical change here, no transformation in Obama’s campaign promise terms. There seems to be a continuation of Republican monetary theory.

On the other hand, Democrats should be focusing on employment creation. This is not simple, although a large stimulus in infrastructure such as public works would be an obvious start. Increased workers would lead to increased consumer spending which would eventually prime the pump to help business. Significant spending for public education would help train workers and future workers for the job market.

My simple question is why the general public is accepting the continuing lack of equity in wealth distribution in the United States. The demise of unions and collective bargaining by blue collar workers is certainly a factor. Another is that most people are locked into the stock market in one fashion or another. But the simple fact remains that the current economic crisis has not fundamentally changed economic realities and the current administration seems not significantly concerned with the employment crisis.

The Christmas season is beginning. People are thinking about presents and/or vacations. For Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Stanley employees, their socks will be filled. And the others?

Much to a general surprise, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Immediately, two questions were posed: Did he deserve the award? Was it premature to give it to him? The Nobel Committee specifically spoke of his efforts to improve the international atmosphere by re-invigorating multilateral diplomacy as well as the United Nations. But, they also recognized his call for reducing nuclear weapons at the same time as restarting disarmament negotiations. The Committee’s citation referred to both his efforts and certain tangible results.

Perhaps another question is more relevant: What will be the consequences of the award? While there has been surprising criticism of the award from the left and right as well as congratulations from Fidel Castro, there has been less speculation of how the award will affect President Obama’s future activities.

Internationally, President Obama will have an increased aura, if that is possible. During his trips outside the United States, he has been treated as a mega rock star. The award will only increase his personal popularity. But, and the but is important, will it help him to finalize his foreign policy priorities? After all, other Nobel Peace Prize winners have failed to finalize a Middle East peace accord.

Domestically, the situation is less promising. The Prize will be seen as a negative confirmation of his Open Hand Policy. Those who were critical of his cosmopolitanism will have more reason to present him as un-American. In his press conference after the award was announced, President Obama referred to his role as Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces to remind people that just because he was the winner of the award, he might still send the requested 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. His priorities, we were told, remain U.S. priorities. In effect, he was re-iterating that he was President of the United States and not the world’s leader, as many would hope.

How can a Nobel Peace Prize have negative consequences for the winner? Indeed, that is the real question that he must answer and avoid.

International Geneva and Switzerland were the focus of three important diplomatic events last week, but the results are not yet easily determined. Far from the press frenzy of the Roman Polanski case, some serious news events were taking place with potentially noteworthy consequences.

First, and in no particular order, Richard Goldstone presented his findings on the recent Israel-Gaza confrontation to the Human Rights Council. The Report placed blame on both sides for their actions, but specifically placed considerable responsibility on Israel for systematically targeting civilians during their attacks. Judge Goldstone called for internal investigations on both sides, and if not forthcoming, eventual action by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. His accusations were denied by Israel and concrete follow-up postponed until this spring for fear of intervening in the current peace negotiations.

Second, Swiss Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini presented her report to the European Union on the causes of the conflict between Georgia and Russia. In a highly detailed examination of all the events, she pointed to Georgia as the factual aggressor while underlining the provocative activities of Russia before the August 7 flare-up. In addition, she underlined the disproportionality of Russia’s response and its illegal recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent entities following the hostilities.

Finally, Iran sat down at the table in Geneva with the United States, other members of the Security Council, Germany, and the European Union to negotiate its nuclear program. All sides agreed that the IAEA would investigate the Qom facility within two weeks with Russia and France offering to upgrade Iranian nuclear material for medical use.

All three events are obvious successes for Swiss diplomacy, badly in need of uplifting after the UBS, Libyan and Polanski negative headlines. But, although each event is important diplomatically and filled with hope, the follow-up consequences are far from clear. What happens if Israel and Hamas are not punished for their actions, which were labeled as serious offenses, if not war crimes and/or crimes against humanity? What happens if Russia and Georgia continue to have skirmishes on the border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia being recognized by only 3 countries? Is this grey zone acceptable, like the Western Sahara and Kosovo being recognized only by certain countries? Finally, what happens if Iran continues to develop nuclear material in other secret facilities or refuses further inspection or the French-Russian offer?

The International Court of Justice made a powerful ruling about Israel’s construction of a wall separating it from its neighbors. The Swiss were the given the responsibility for the follow-up. Ambassador Jeno Staehlin wrote an excellent report which has remained lost in the bottom of diplomatic drawers. Will these three events be forgotten or will there be real breakthroughs?