The Obama Doctrine?

By Fae MacArthur Clark

With leaders from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, and now Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein looking to talk with Obama, and Obama, for the most part, willing to talk back, US foreign policy seems to be taking off in a decidedly different direction from at least the last eight years. And it's not only talk, changes to US policy in Afhanistan and Somalia also point to a new approach to foreign policy.


This hasn't gone unnoticed within the US on the left or the right alike. Nile Gardner, Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom wrote in an article for the British newspaper, the Telegraph entitled "The UN Loves Barack Obama Because He Is Weak," "His appeasement of Iran, his bullying of Israel, his surrender to Moscow, his call for a nuclear free world, his siding with Marxists in Honduras, his talk of a climate change deal, have all won him plaudits in the large number of UN member states where US foreign policy has traditionally been viewed with contempt. Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack."


Others commend the move towards multilateralism, with Jacob Heilbrunn of the Huffington Post writing "instead of standing aloof and sulking in the corner, as the U.S. has for years, it's starting to wield its influence. For too long, Bush allowed America's foes to dictate events by refusing to engage them. Obama is taking the opposite approach. Just as the economy needs to be jump-started, so does foreign policy. Obama has recognized that. The revitalization of American diplomacy and power has begun."


But what does this actually mean for US relations with the rest of the world and is the Obama doctrine one of "weak[ness]" or a "revitalization of American diplomacy and power"? It rather depends on how one understands the dynamics of global power play. In a model in which US power is maintained by force and the fear of the use of it, Gardiner's comments make a great deal of sense and Obama's attempts at multilateralism seem like clear expressions of weakness. In one in which US power is both restrained by and most effective in cooperation with other states, Heilbrunn's argument is more persuasive. In reality, there is probably a certain degree of both present in global politics. Consequently, both sides will likely find fodder for challenging and applauding Obama's foreign policy. What will be most telling are the material ramifications in key areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

Obama Falters Over Deadline to Close Guatanamo Bay

By Noquel A. Matos

This past Monday White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs announced that President Obama might not be able to deliver on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center by the pronounced January 22, 2010 deadline.

Obama that made clear during his campaign speech that if he became President he will close the infamous detention center seemed to deliver his promised when only two days after being sworn president, declared a deadline for the closing of the prison. However, as the words of White House Press Secretary convey the President might have miscalculated the prospects to close the detention center.

Now the priority on closing the detention center has shifted from when to close it to how to close it. Mr. Gibbs claimed that the deadline was not the main concern, but how go about moving the prisoners to secure prisons.

Several senators from different states have already expressed concerns regarding these prisoners considered of the worst kind to be hosted on their state prisons. With the controversy that is sure to cause the imprisonment of 9/11 alleged plotters and other terrorist in U.S territory prisons Obama’s administration is trying to maintain the destination of these prisoners confidential.

With all of these factors to take into account in such a delicate issue with the international attention that Guantanamo Bay receives, it’s smart for President Obama to take his time to plan the closing of the prison. Although a question of time remains important into the considerations that go into closing the detention center, the question of effectiveness shall bare more importance.

The American public should be happy that the government is taking a responsible approach to its policy. It has not shied away from the responsibility of acknowledging its challenges and shortcomings.

One shall not think that hesitation is a sign of weakness.

The fact our new elected President is able to be transparent about the possibility of not meeting a deadline three months before that deadline is due and not two weeks before does not tell us he is not firmed on his decisions but that he is thoughtful about them. The decision has never changed; the prison is still getting close, just not hurriedly, at the right time.

URL LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/politics/29gitmo.html?ref=americas

New HIV Vaccine Hails from Thailand

Prat Boonyawongvirot, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand, addresses a high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS at the United Nations in New York. Credit UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz

By Sue Gloor

A ground-breaking experiment in Thailand has led researchers to be optimistic about a vaccine to prevent HIV.

The experiment is the largest-ever HIV vaccine trial, and combined the administration of two HIV vaccines, both used previously with no results. The vaccines target the B and E strains of HIV since those strains are predominant in Thailand. The C strain, most prevalent in Africa, was not tested.

The subjects of this trial were 16,395 HIV-negative men and women from all over Thailand between the ages of 18 and 30. Half of the trial’s participants were given the vaccine, and half were given the placebo, after which they were all counseled in HIV prevention. Over the course of three years, the participants were tested for HIV every six months. The experiment resulted in a startling finding that has yet to be supported by additional trials, though it is promising just the same.

Of the subjects who received the placebo, 74 contracted HIV over the three-year period. Of the vaccinated participants, 51 became infected with HIV in the same period. This translates to a 31.2% decrease in HIV infection with the vaccine.

Though a direct causal relationship between the vaccine and diminished HIV infection has not been substantiated, the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS hailed the study as successful.

Even Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet Medical Journal, stated that the findings “may have been due to chance,” and while they are encouraging, they cannot be relied on yet.

Studies of this nature are particularly difficult to employ, since some of the volunteers receive an un-tested vaccination comprised of a very harmful and serious virus. If the vaccine is not weak enough, it could potentially trigger the infection of HIV itself rather than prevent it.

However, the new experiment from Thailand seems to be on the right track.

With President Zelaya Back, First Post-Cold War Coup Could Turn Violent

By Noquel A. Matos

TEGUCIGALPA-Three months ago on June 28, the Honduran military kidnapped President Manuel Zelaya into Costa Rica removing him from government and proclaiming a de facto government led by Roberto Micheletti. Micheletti’s government, disapproved by the international community, came to power in response of President Zelaya attempts at passing a referendum this past June. They claim that the referendum looked to undermine the Honduran Constitution by allowing President Zelaya to re-elect. Despite international economical sanctions in the way of embargo towards the coup leader, Roberto Micheletti has stood fast in his position of not giving up the presidential seat.
Honduras in its current state of political instability with the army patrolling the streets, it’s only going to get more chaotic. Yesterday, President Zelaya secretly sneaked back into the country. The disposed President made arrangements with the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa to let him take refuge in their premises. Roberto Michelli, who at first denied the presence of President Zelaya in the country, ordered the Brazilian Embassy to give him up so he could face the 18 charges against him.
President Zelaya who has being open for dialogues however will not give himself in. The President has denied any attempt alleged by de facto government of under minding the constitution. Actually, President Zelaya said he never planned to run for re-elections.
With the leaders of the world just meeting North from this developing conflict, and for its nature of being the first attempt to oust a president by force in the Post-Cold War era this conflict is predicted to gain the world’s attention in the United Nations. Nevertheless, the prospect of a peaceful solution does not look plausible. Roberto Micheletti has been resiliency on his position of staying in government and Manuel Zelaya grows impatient to return to his Presidential seat.
Now, with President Zelaya back in Honduran territory things could grow violent as Roberto Micheletti keeps pressuring to convict the President elected.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/world/americas/22honduras.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=zelaya%20is%20back&st=cse

Where to in Afghanistan?

By Fae MacArthur Clark

With the world's political leaders all gathering together in New York for the 61st session of the UN Assembly, President Obama looks set to have his plate full pushing the peace process with those who aren't that interested in talking and avoiding those that are. However, a nation whose ruler isn't going to be there is likely also garnering a good deal of Obama's attention.


Three weeks ago the media picked up on a new report coming out of Afghanistan calling for a new strategy there and last week the Washington Post got a hold of a copy of the confidential report. The report, the work of Obama's newly appointed leading General in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reads in no uncertain terms “failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible” and calls for more troops to be sent to the region. It is not, however, simply a call for more men and guns. McChrystal's report provides a detailed assessment of the status of the insurgency in Afghanistan and proposes a strategy more concerned with protecting civilians and training Afghani troops and police.


The report also pulls no punches in its critique of the Afghani government. “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government” explains McChrystal. But what does this mean for the US?


In light of this summer's allegations of election fraud, this further indightment of the Afghani government, and the increasing unpopularity of the war at home, Obama may find it hard to justify extending the troops and resources General McChrystal requests. On the other hand, pulling out would likely raise accusations of cutting and running from a mess that we made and would leave the Afghani people largely unprotected in the face of a well organized Taliban. Finally, a compromise presents itself as perhaps the worst of the three options, likely leaving those US troops currently in Afghanistan in an increasingly dangerous position without achieving any of our goals there.


It seems, perhaps, that we are in a situation with only one real way forward and it isn't an appealing one. Cutting and running or continuing an ineffective presence, however, seem distinctly less favorable. Obama has shown some tacit support in the past for continued intervention in Afghanistan by stating he would not commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan without “absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.” But with a strategy, such as McChrystal's, perhaps that is what we are going to see.

Obama initiates Israel/Palestine Discussion

By Sue Gloor

On Tuesday, September 22, President Obama will meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials to discuss the current inroads and future plans for the situation in the Middle East. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be representing Israel at the talks, and President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will jointly speak for Palestine.

Even though previous talks among the three powers have resulted in little headway in the conflict, and even though the recently-convened General Assembly will also address the Israel/Palestine issue this week, Obama believes that additional, separate attempts at negotiation will be beneficial.

Among the Palestinian grievances to discuss are the new settlements by Israelis in the region, such as the building of infrastructure on land that may eventually be conceded to Palestine.

Netanyahu is hesitant to commit to a course of action, saying that he can’t make concessions (like agreeing to stop the settlements) until the negotiations have started. This is why extensive talks with a third party such as the US can help bolster compromise.

Israel, on the other hand, is most preoccupied with blocking and/or halting the nuclear proliferation of Iran and North Korea, which Israel deems inappropriate and potentially harmful.

It’s not surprising that Israel feels threatened by Iran’s increasing nuclear capabilities. In fact, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak admitted that “he removes no option from the table,” alluding to the fact that Israel sees a military attack on Iran as a viable option.

Barak also pointed the US in the direction of addressing North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, since this issue is weighing on the minds of Israelis as well. Still, Barak remains adamant that Israel can protect itself should it be necessary.

This leaves the impression that Obama should prepare himself not only for a mediating roll in the talks, but also to be challenged about compromises the US can make to help the situation.

Link to Article, Sorry! (Noquel)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/americas/13venez.html?ref=americas

The "Palestinian Question": Why We should Watch This Spot

By Fae MacArthur Clark

During my very short trip to Egypt and Lebanon this summer, the first topic of discussion with regard to US - Middle East politics wasn't Iraq, it wasn't Afghanistan, it was Israel.

In the shadow of conflicts in which we are actively involved, the US public has a tendency to view US policy towards Israel as a less than defining aspect of US relations with the "Muslim World"*. However, the Israel-Palestine conflict should probably garner a little more of our attention for three reasons.

First: People in the Middle East think it is important. The 2008 Arab Public Opinion Poll [warning: this links to a download] by the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland found that 86% of Arabs (surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) considered the “Palestinian question” as one of their top three issues and 42% responded that the possibility that “continuing trouble in Iraq will divert attention from other issues such as the Palestinian question” was one of their top two biggest concerns as to the consequences of the Iraq war.

Public opinion in the Middle East is important to the US on the most simplistic level because of its effect upon the availability of recruits to groups like Al Qaeda. But it is also important, in a far more complex and perhaps more consequential sense, because of its general effect upon the possibility of healing the rift between the West and the Middle East and the consequences that this entails such as the forging of increased diplomatic ties and the possibility for change considered “Western” such as more diplomatic political systems and more freedom for women.

Second: The Israel-Palestine situation is changing. We have a tendency to focus upon Israel only when violence breaks out, however, despite the lack of a major Israeli (or Palestinian) offensive currently, we might do well to keep an eye on the politics and the much softer exertion of power by Israel through settlements in the occupied territories (and the debate between Israel and the Obama Whitehouse on this topic). Yes, this has been going on for decades, but with a new US president pushing Israel for change and a growing appreciation both internationally and within Israel that the whole situation is heading towards a two-state solution, these power postures may have a greater effect than their earlier counterparts.

Third: The solution to Israel-Palestine issue has the potential to be a very unstable one in a region with no need for further political instability. US policy in the region over the next few years has the opportunity to have a great affect upon the forging of this solution and upon the eventual stability of the fledgling Palestine likely to emerge from it.

The events in Israel and Palestine over the next year as well as the part the Obama administration plays in them could very well turn out to be defining points in US - Middle East relations.



*The term "Muslim World" is a thoroughly inadequate descriptor which is highly misleading as to the nature of the nations involved, however, there is a distinct lack of a better term that encompasses the region in question.

Edited to add a title.

Western Hemisphere Missile Crisis?

By Noquel A. Matos

This last Friday on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez announced it will buy short range missiles from Russia. Chavez clarified that the purpose of the missiles were only for defense against an attack or invasion and that Venezuela was not planning an attack against another country.

However, the purchase of the missiles with enough range to strike American military installations in Colombia, Curacao and the Island of Aruba are suspected to be Chavez's response to America's plan to increase its military presence in Colombia. Chavez's decision of purchasing the missiles might bring conflict with the United States. The United States might read Chavez's move of purchasing these weapons as the leader's intention of following his fellow nation leader Fidel Castro's steps. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 Fidel Castro placed Soviet Union's (Russian) missiles in its mountains in response to United States' placing of missiles in Turkey.

Alarm in Washington over President Chavez's transaction with Russia is to be expected. On this last decade, Hugo Chavez has come to replace Castro as the most outspoken anti-American leader in the Western Hemisphere. Also, Chavez has openly accused the United States of backing the military coup that temporarily removed him from government in 2002. Moreover, more than once Chavez has denounced plans of the United States to assassinate him.

If any country in the Western Hemisphere has the motive and the capability to attack the United States is Venezuela. The United States should take this seriously because if a conflict were to prevail the loses will be equally as high in both sides since Venezuela is the fourth largest supplier of American oil and Venezuela's economy depends heavily on America's petrodollars.

Obama attempts to remedy past Bush blunders

By Sue Gloor

The Obama administration has begun to make marked changes in the United States’ approach to dealing with alleged terrorists, the New York Times reports. Especially under focus is the Bagram prison near Kabul, Afghanistan, which is known for using “heavy interrogation” methods that have so far killed two detainees.

The Pentagon has come up with several changes to current detention center operating procedures, which will hopefully be more in compliance with human rights legislation:

--Assign an official to each of the 600 detainees at Bagram, who will then be responsible for aiding the detainee in pleading his case before a military-appointed review board. The official will be able to gather documents, find witnesses and review classified information, for example, to help the detainee challenge his detention.

--Close the old Bagram prison and replace it with a new, more “modern and humane” 40-acre complex.

--The U.S. military will release the identities of detainees held in some prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something it has refused to do previously.

--Pentagon officials will be more sensitive to the conditions under which detainees are held, will try to separate the extremists from the moderate militants and will determine treatment accordingly.

Some people, especially advocates from human rights groups, are unsure that the new detention standards will be enforced enough to actually affect the detainees. They believe that some of the guidelines, like acquiring enough government officials to assign each detainee his own representative, will be difficult to put into practice.

Pentagon officials are confident, though, that the proposed changes will increase the fairness and morality surrounding the detention of the suspects. Obama still wants to keep the Bagram prison open and working, since it is one of the few places that terrorism suspects captured outside of Afghanistan and Iraq can be detained.

Fall 09's Blog Gets Rolling

The fall BGIA Writing on International Affairs blog will appear in this space soon. Tune in ....