Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not A Bad Month On Foreign Policy, Either

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 09:29 AM
Original message
Not A Bad Month On Foreign Policy, Either
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027248.php

NOT A BAD MONTH ON FOREIGN POLICY, EITHER.... With a successful lame-duck session having wrapped up, and the year coming to an end, there's been plenty of recent talk about President Obama's legislative victories. David Ignatius has a related assessment today, focusing entirely on foreign policy.

Ignatius notes that last month's midterm elections sparked "stage whispers" among world leaders about "the erosion of American power, and of Obama as a weak and inattentive president." There are still concerns, of course, but the column notes the White House's recent moves have "allowed Obama to show some backbone, a quality that Europeans, in particular, feared was missing."

The list begins with the president's trip to India in November, when he was still reeling from the Democrats' midterm defeat. That cast an aura of failure over the trip, but in retrospect it looks a bit more positive: In New Delhi, Obama managed to strengthen ties with India without upsetting Pakistan, a neat trick.

Next came South Korea. Although Obama was drubbed for not getting a free-trade deal before his arrival, his refusal to make last-minute concessions to Seoul made the final deal reached in December much better, and won it bipartisan support. It's arguably the most important free-trade pact since NAFTA.

A third success was the Lisbon summit in late November.... The December Af-Pak review, the fourth item on the list, followed on the Lisbon frame.... Then came the three big theatrical events in December: the formation of an Iraqi government; the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; and ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. In all three, Obama succeeded by working closely with his diplomatic and military advisers, especially Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Finally, and least noticed, was the test with North Korea. While saying little in public, the administration mobilized for the possibility of war if North Korea continued its provocations. Obama cautioned Chinese President Hu Jintao in a phone call three weeks ago that because North Korea is a nuclear nation, its recklessness threatens the United States. The White House thinks the Chinese got the message -- and warned Pyongyang.


We talked a bit about this several months ago, but a fascinating dynamic frequently plays out in international affairs: global players base their U.S. interactions, at least in part, on their perceptions of presidential standing. If the American head of state is perceived as weak -- faltering domestic support, stalled legislative agenda -- friend and foe alike will take those cues seriously. If the chief executive is perceived as strong, that matters just as much.

There's been a fair amount of scuttlebutt lately about a perceived presidential "comeback," thanks to a string of year-end victories. But while these breakthroughs may give Obama a modest bump in the polls, it also gives him a stronger hand when dealing foreign friends and foes.

When it comes to the administration's foreign policy agenda, that's obviously a good thing.

—Steve Benen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wouldn't call this a win........
Although Obama was drubbed for not getting a free-trade deal before his arrival, his refusal to make last-minute concessions to Seoul made the final deal reached in December much better, and won it bipartisan support. It's arguably the most important free-trade pact since NAFTA.


NAFTA is one of the big reasons that we are in the economic mess we are in. Obama campaigned against NAFTA. We don't need another "free trade" agreement. We need fair trade agreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dokkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. In the New Democratic party
NAFTA style free trade agreement is a win for the corporation, err i meant the people. Also I want to believe all those agreement are going to improve conditions in America but I have no idea what the results. MSM reporters tend to confuse we the people for we the corporations so am reserving judgement till I start seeing results
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC