June 11, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (643)

"the legacy of his presidency and the image of the US abroad. Will Europe forget about Bush soon after the elections and consider the US once again as a partner and friend?"

And conversely of course - don't forget that feelings and images have been 'tainted' on both sides of the Atlantic. Arguably the US could do more easily without much of Europe than the converse.

Being compared to the Third Reich is not pleasant - and I heard lots of that kind of thing, although it's been toned down the past few years. But memories are long.....

June 11, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (643)

The NY Times Tom Freidman "Obama on the Nile":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=opinion

Enjoy.

June 12, 2008

Ethan Christian Arrow, Atlantic Community, Silver Contributor (44)

Thanks, Donald, for the link. That's an interesting article. Observations from ex-pats on the current election are always insightful. One thing that disturbed me, however, was that there was very little substance in the Egyptians' demeanor regarding Obama.

"He has dark skin, he has Muslim heritage, we like him." This was a general Egyptian consensus? Skin color and grandfathers are interesting, but what about his policy and experience? Awing at America for being a place of radical, new beginnings is one thing, listening to the approval of Muslims in the Middle East of one of our presidential candidates because he's a shade darker (looks like me!) and his grandfather was Muslim (so was mine!) and labeling this as America's dynamic advantage over traditional countries is somewhat skewed.

Obama's middle name is Hussein. Ok. Obama's ethnicity might have caused a stir at the 1756 London World Fair. This is 2008. Yes, the fact that Obama isn't a white protestant with an anglo-sounding last name is perhaps a clear sign that these things are becoming less important. And granted, electing him as president would send a message to the world that we are dynamic and open to change, but choosing him as the best candidate because his appearance and family tree might earn us some leverage in the Arab world is backward thinking. This is America in 2008. John F. Kennedy's legacy wasn't being a Catholic president, let's not make Obama's- if he even wins- being a minority with rumors of a Muslim background.

After all, no one's yet mentioned all the approval America will get in racist-leaning enclaves of Europe for electing John McCain, a white president with a militant background. No, we take a look at political choices, experience and ability. After his amazing performance as Illinois Senator and his fight in the primaries, I think Obama has deserved the same.

June 12, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (643)

"there was very little substance in the Egyptians’ demeanor regarding Obama."

I agree - but think it doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does. The nomination of Obama is a symbol, not in itself substance. Note that I don't write 'mere' symbol, because symbols arouse the emotions in a way that substance cannot. 'Bear any burden', 'Ich bein ein Berliner', 'I Have a Dream' - these were symbols.

Obama reminds many people (including myself) of JFK, but arguably is an even more powerful symbol than JFK was. He has everything JFK had except Jackie, but also a dark skin, African ancestry, Asian/Hawaiin upbringing, 'Muslim' middle name, plus young, dynamic, smart, and the best orator in US politics since Kennedy.

This symbolism needs to be translated into substance of course, and Obama promises so much (in who he is) that he almost cannot fulfill all the promises. But don't forget that Kennedy also didn't personally fulfill his promises - that was left to more substantial men like Johnson and (yes) Richard Nixon to do. That was perhaps because his life was cut cruelly short - we'll never know what Kennedy could have actually accomplished. But the symbolism has a power of it's own - and it speaks to the man in the street who will never debate on forums like this one. In Obama's case it's a street in the global village as well as in the US.

No, Obama doesn't actually SOLVE the problems. But I think the Freidman piece points out something critically important about Obama - he opens eyes and ears.

June 12, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (643)

"the approval America will get in racist-leaning enclaves of Europe for electing John McCain"

What approval? If the US elected David Duke they might approve; but McCain is no racist. And in any case very few in the US wish for that approval.

June 12, 2008

ilyas m mohsin, ppp, Platinum Contributor (253)

George W appears to have only one defence--- why was he elected in 2000? Yes, unfortunately money counts in US elections, generally, despite all the homilies on Campaign Finance. In his case it was the curious mix of money/ oil lobby pulling it through despite the 'pregnant cahds' etc. The next stint appears to be the gift from a frightened people
as revealed by McClellan of White House fame and the new evidnece of
'inspired' intelligence.
Christopher Marlowe had said during 16th century,
" I count religion but a childish toy,
And hold there is no sin but ignorance."
what he did during Queen Elizabeth' last visit to US would not bring any credit even to a 111 world 'ruler' ?
It is a shame that his ignorance made him listen to the likes of Rove etc. While Iraq/ Afghanistan had to bear about 2 million dead besides the destruction of their countries during 'occupation' redefined as 'democracy' now, the US itself has suffered awfully. Its own democracy/ Rule of law etc has gone haywire. Like the Soviets, almost, it has its own Gulags in Gitmo, Abu Ghuraib, Bgram etc. No wonder its image/ credibility/ power has crumbled the world over including EU.
As the Americans are, generally, good guys. They tend to be unmindful of what goes on in the world like their President. Now is the time to rise above personal prejudices in favor of ignorance etc. They have to elect a President who would be successful in proving to the world that US is not only GUNG HO now; it beleieves in Diplomacy, Dialogue and International Law like it used to. The sins of Omission/ Commission on the part of his predecessor would be difficult to wash, particularly in Afghanistan where Revenge for wrong-doing is the solemn tradition unless a pardon is negotiated.
Friedman' article makes a good reading but his rubbing in of color etc in case of Obama should denigrate US as per its Declaration of Independence. True the US has had to pay a price for bringing in a civil rights regime and even now there are some KU KLUX LKAN GOONS. Despite all the orgies prompted by the Arrogance of power, till 2000 it tended to be very tolerant, humanistic and rights-conscious society. Rubbing in of such petty differences would destroy its real strength of being an immigrant country which used to welcome anybody who wants to make the best of human life without bothering about very personal factors like color, religion, parentage etc.

June 13, 2008

Daniel Rackowski, Transatlantic Institute, Gold Contributor (97)

Re: How Long is Bush's Shadow?

The conventional wisdom of course is that everything will be different post-Bush, which, in turn, prompts many journalists to write the exact opposite in an attempt to be ingenious. The problem of course is that sometimes conventional wisdoms can hold their ground - as is the case with this one.

But the author of the Süddeutsche article makes an even bolder and less quantifiable claim, namely that America will change, but perceptions of America won’t. Just why exactly this is bound to happen does not become apparent from his analysis.

Many Germans may be disenchanted with the US now, but as long as the US retains the ability to change, so might perceptions of the US in Europe. Attempts to place Europeans under the tutelage by predicting mass-psychological developments is not only patronizing, it can help generate a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why would open-minded Europeans absorb the complex legal loophole dilemmas of Guantanamo Bay, yet be unable to appreciate the meaning of the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court to grant combatants access to US ‘civilian’ Courts? Germans – despite the author’s claims - still love to travel to the US, as long as the weak dollar appeals to them. I have met few Germans who would refuse to travel to the US out of ideological reasons. They may not necessarily want to visit the ranch of G. W., but they happily embrace the ‘other’ America, that of New York, San Francisco, Miami and Los Angeles; in other words, the America that Obama seems to embody and that many Europeans still hold in high esteem.

June 13, 2008

Stanley R. Sloan, Atlantic Community Initiative, Platinum Contributor (160)

The Bush administration certainly has done major damage to the image and influence of the United States in Europe and around the world.

This discussion has already presented some interesting perspectives on the future of the relationship under a new American president.

I have recently been focusing on the fact that the Western alliance has arguably “survived” this test, the latest in the many crises the Atlantic Alliance has endured in its 60 year history.

As a contribution to this dialogue, I offer an excerpt from an article that is scheduled for publication in the publication Swords and Plowshares and will form the basis for additionally-planned research and publications:

“The Iraq war created huge political divisions in NATO and the European Union. According to one senior European diplomat, every capitol and ministry in Europe was seriously divided – even in countries that officially came down strongly on one side of the war debate or the other. Bush administration officials acted in ways intended to emphasize and deepen those divisions.

The bottom line, however, is that NATO apparently has “survived” the Bush administration. The alliance soldiers on, continuing to expand and leading the international community’s stabilization effort in Afghanistan in spite of the:

-- starkly unilateralist policies in the first year of the administration;
-- “we are at war” mentality and the fear and anger the captured American thinking and emotions following 9/11;
-- explicit rejection by the Bush administration of Europe’s and NATO’s utility following the attacks;
-- controversial decision to attack Iraq and the bungled operation there;
-- manner in which American policies and attitudes divided European governments; and
-- widespread European revulsion at George W. Bush’s policies and his personality.

NATO’s survival cannot be explained in terms of the need for a response to an existential threat. Such a threat from the Soviet Union had been history for a decade before Bush came to office, and had not been reconstituted. It also cannot be explained in terms of European acceptance of the Bush administration’s argument following 9/11 that the United States and its allies were at war with radical Islamic extremism. That argument was not accepted by most Europeans.

However, there are other possible explanations. Without implying order of importance or general acceptance, they arguably include:

-- The fact that, in spite of differences over Iraq and international relations generally, the United States and its European allies still share an impressive collection of values and interests;
-- US behavior during the Bush administration appeared more revolutionary than it was, and Europe had already begun to get used to some of the inclinations in US policy toward unilateralism and hegemonic behavior during the Clinton administration;
-- European governments simply had no alternative to remaining in alliance with the United States, and NATO was still the most important symbol and operational component of the relationship.
-- failure of the EU constitution to win popular acceptance suggested the arguments being made for the European Union to become a “balancer” of US power internationally – likely destroying NATO – could not be sustained by reality, at least in the near term;
-- European governments remained split concerning the future construction of Europe, and the default position (of European integration within the broader context of transatlantic cooperation) was sufficiently compelling to discourage other options;
-- “new” European democracies in Eastern and Central Europe were strongly committed to NATO’s continuation, particularly because their historical and geographic proximity to Russian power and influence convinced them that NATO provided an essential link to US power that was not provided by EU membership;
-- European governments decided that, in spite of how difficult the relationship with the United States had become, there were no acceptable alternative power centers with which Europe could align;
-- and, the financial and economic fortunes of the United States and Europe had become so mutually interdependent that a political/security break with the United States could put all vital European interests at risk.

All these arguments could be seen as part of the answer to the question “can NATO survive Afghanistan?” The answer would appear to be that, if NATO can survive George Bush, the allies can find a way to survive Afghanistan. A reason that could be added to the list above in the case of Afghanistan is that it is not only NATO’s future that is at risk in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. The future of the United Nations, the European Union and the overall ability of the international system to deal with failed states, terrorism, the illicit drug trade and the clash between traditional societies and modernization all hang in the Afghanistan balance. NATO is not alone in this challenge."

All this suggests to me that, while some of the damage done by Bush will linger, there will be incredible pressure on the next administration and on our allies to "get over it" and to deal effectively with Afghanistan and the many other challenges we face.

June 13, 2008

george pieler

The 'shadow' idea may be a bit of a canard. Historically (at least in recent decades) general European opinion has always preferred Democratic US presidents. I don't recall intense European criticism of Bill Clinton's renditioning practices. Given McCain's 'maverick' status, whether he or Obama wins there will be some temporary improvement in official European attitudes towards the US, and no reason to doubt Asia will be different. That will last until there is a major clash of interests between the US and its Asian or European friends. It is not surprising there will be tension between what is now seen as the Sole Superpower (the States) and other nations with economic power, cultural importance, and a population with ambitions for more. US-EU relations remain good, anyway.

June 14, 2008

Sonja Davidovic

Gentlemen,
thank you all for your contribution.

To Mr. Rackowski:
Your made a valid point concerning the unconventional opinion that Kister's article is trying to convey. It is not only profile raising and appealing but very dangerous at the same time. Arguing that Europe and Asia won't forget Bush's legacy for many years in the future is populist and highly counterproductive. Instead of solutions, the article offers nothing but accusations and doom-mongering. Based on such a gloomy perception the future of any relationship is doomed to stay overshadowed in the future.

Regardless of our individual normative stance on the Bush administration and its legacy we must not forget that he was the 9/11 President. I believe that non-Americans are not able to perceive 9/11 in the same way as Americans. Of course the international community was shocked, but for the Americans the extent of this national tragedy went much farther beyond the imagination of any non-American. 9/11 was not supposed to generate a carte blanche for unilateral actions by the American government, but in light of such a tragedy, under these circumstances, in a situation of national threat and danger, partisanship becomes obsolete. In my term paper on American foreign policy I argue that even a Democratic US President would have acted unilateral or in a similar way as a Republican President.

Nevertheless, it cannot be dismissed that America's image abroad is damaged. Yes, there are differentiated people who don't assign the policies of the Bush administration to the American nation in general. However, with all due respect, the majority of the European people out there don't conduct research, they don't have the same access to information and resources, and they simply don't know the "other America". Thus, we don't have to convince each other that there are many people in the US, who engage in a critical and constructive dialogue, that the US has always been a trustworthy ally and that it is the strenght of our common values that ensures the longevity of transatlantic ties despite existing diversions. It is regular folks on the street, especially the younger generation, that ought to be the target group of public diplomacy efforts by the US government, think tanks and other civil society initiatives.

Instead of arguing about the lenght of Bush's shadow we could try to formulate concrete policy recommendations. Sometimes politicians are forced to unpopular policies. But even the most unpopular policies can be sold if they come in a nice package. If they are explained, discussed, analyzed. This is when soft power comes into play. The DOD has already acknowledged the significance of public diplomacy by allocating much more funds for this kind of efforts.

So, what is it that the next US President do better? Will soft power assert itself as a more appealing foreign policy tool in general? Does the opening of the US Media Hub signalize a new soft power approach? What is our individual contribution?

June 16, 2008

Bernhard Lucke, BTU Cottbus, Gold Contributor (128)

In my opinion, the discussion might be focusing too much on the person of George W. Bush. He does not decide alone, but is backed by large and powerful groups, who look down on other nations (especially if they are "less democratic"), or fear "competitors" for resources. Also, we don't know whether Obama or McCain will succeed Bush. If McCain wins, will there be any change in U.S. policies?

In my opinion, the true issue is our (the "west") dependence on gas, oil, and other limited resources. If everybody on this planet wants to share our standard of living, there are simply not enough resources for the currently applied technologies... So the basic choice is, are we going to change our way of living, even if this may mean a reduction of the standard of living, or are we continuing with business as usual? Hasn't the present scenario already been foretold in the "Limits to Growth"? We may have followed exactly the path which was modeled then.

Continuing with business as ususal may only work if global resources are controlled by force. In this context, the policy of George W. Bush may have been just consequent. It had a very bad taste that freedoms and morals were increasingly sacrificed on the altars of power and "security", while Bush talked so much about "freedom and democracy". But as important as these issues are, I think they are a mere style question. For example, even if the next president condems torture and wars of aggression, I am convinced that secret prisons will continue to exist, that illegal force will be applied in interrogations (at least in the grey zone of the legal framework), and that military power will be used as it is in the interest of nations and economic powers. This is the nature of conflicts and use of force. A better style will not change the core and focus of U.S. policies, and thus not raise sympathies.

With the lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear to me that the policy of "business as usual" will fail. A president who continues that way may lead us to more conflicts and probably to a further, much steeper decline of U.S. power. On the other hand, if a substantial change is undertaken which attempst so seriously achieve sustainability of our style of living, I think the U.S. would quickly be respected again as a leading power. In the end, it might be a very moral question: do which degree are the U.S. ready to share resources on this planet? Readiness to share will also change the style to a much more positive approach, and in this case I think Bush will soon be forgotten. There are so many urgent problems to be solved that everybody will just be happy if the U.S. take a lead in cooperative actions. But yes, that means we all here in this forum have a little share of G.W. Bush's shadow... since we share a style of living which is percieved as decadent and arrogant by many of the poor of this world.