Ruminations, November 2, 2008

Meeting Iran without preconditions

During the primaries, Barack Obama said that he would meet with the leaders of Iranwithout precondition. He took a lot of flak on that statement both fromhis Democratic opponents and, later, the Republicans. In this space, wewondered what would happen if Iran refused to meet with Obama.

Last week, Irankind of did that. They set their own preconditions for meeting with aPresident Obama. Iranian Vice President for Media Affairs, Mehdi Kalhorsaid that for talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US to occur, the US must first pull all troops out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel.

Now what? Will a President Obama go hat-in-hand to Iran and ask for an audience? Will a President Obama pull all troops out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel? Or will he refuse to meet with Iran during the first year of his presidency without preconditions?

Whatever he chooses, he’ll get more flak.

Did George Bush really damage US relations with Europe?

It’san article of faith on the left (and some on the right, as well) thatGeorge Bush’s diplomacy and foreign policy damaged our relationshipwith our European allies and a new president cannot help but to dobetter. I wonder; was it really George Bush or is it the United States that arouses the ire of Europe whenever we request a commitment?

Remember the Ronald Reagan presidency? During his presidency, Reagan was not liked in Europe and he was derided as promoting “cowboy diplomacy.” There were massive demonstrations in England and elsewhere against the deployment of Pershing missiles and Reagan’s tough stance vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Reagan was burned in effigy.

During the Bush presidency, Bush was not liked in Europe and he was derided as promoting “cowboy diplomacy.” There have been massive demonstrations against George Bush in Europe and he has also been burned in effigy.

On a broad basis, a similarity between the two presidencies is that both wanted a strong military commitment from Europe.Is the problem that Europe would rather not spend any resources on itsmilitary (with a few exceptions) and would prefer to have the US spending its own resources and manpower on military actions?

Consider, if you will, Barack Obama’s recent journey to Berlin. Obama is seemingly far more liked and respected throughout Europe. In his speech, he talked of Germany increasing its financial resources and military commitment to the war in Afghanistan. This is not Iraq but Afghanistan. German leaders, reacting to Obama’s request, across the board said nein.

President Bush has pushed NATO hard to extend membership to Ukraine and Georgia.In a show of rare unanimity, John McCain and Obama have agreed thatNATO membership for the two former Soviet republics is a must. Lastweek, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was “too early” toconsider NATO membership. Germany, and other European states, is reliant on Russia for oil and Russia opposes NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Will Europeans risk losing oil over NATO expansion? Can a President Obama talk them into it?

Last week, French president Nicolas Sarkozy, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html), said that Obama’s position on Iranwas "utterly immature" and consisted of "formulations empty of allcontent." Notwithstanding the accuracy and/or judgment of Sarkozy, isit good international politics to publicly announce that an ally’spolicy – before it even becomes official policy – is immature and lackscontent? Unless, of course, if you are laying the groundwork to be inopposition the US policy, Sarkozy’s criticism doesn’t make sense –especially because it could damage Europe’s candidate, Barack Obama.

Maybe it’s not George Bush who damaged US/European relations. Maybe Europe wants to set an independent foreign policy with the US providing the muscle and financial support; and, at the same time, is critical of the United States for not falling in line with European policies.

Maybethose who are looking for a golden era in European relations in anObama presidency are going to be disappointed. One hopes that Obama hasa realistic expectation.

“The end of cartooning as we know it”

Last week, political cartoonists Mike Luckovich of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Mike Peters of The Dayton Daily News appeared together on National Public Radio. They lamented the possibility of a Barack Obama presidency. Why?

• "He's just going to be very difficult to mock,"
• “Obama is comfortable in his own skin.”
• “He can actually string sentences together.”
•  "It's going to be the end of cartooning as we know it,"

I guess, to hear Luckovich and Peters tell it, Obama is just too good to satirize.

Then too, Luckovich and Peters admit that they have the intellect of a seven-year-old boy. I think that about covers it.

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut