Since Obama's speech to the Middle Eastern world outlying his support for peace negotiations to be based on the pre-1967 borders of Israel and Palestine, much has changed throughout the international community.
With Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the U.S, he voiced his devout opposition to Obama's plans, with those close to the matter even describing him as 'furious'. As he had eventually cooled down, he had changed his tone and reiterated his want for peace in the region: with certain conditions, however. It is these conditions (refusal to give up any part of Jerusalem, continued military presence along the Jordan River, and keeping parts of the West Bank) that had made their Palestinian counterparts unhappy, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas calling these conditions a 'declaration of war' against the Palestinian people.
With Netanyahu's goals seemingly forced, the cards may not be in Israel's favor. Israel's goal is to make peace by direct talks with the Palestinians, and concessions will be have to be made to achieve this. The reason for this is that if direct talks don't achieve goals for both parties, the Palestinian Authority will then go to the United Nations in September for an international vote proclaiming Palestine an official state, laying groundwork for peace with lmited Israeli say. With strong lobbying power for Israel in Congress, and a crucial minority vote by many pro-Israeli Jews, Obama will support Israeli interests, should this UN vote come about; but it is here that the Americans will stop, with Obama refusing to put pressure on other Security Council members to vote in Israel's favor; Russia, Britain, and Germany have already voiced approval of Obama's plan to negotiate based on the pre-1967 borders, and with this sentiment they are likely to vote for a Palestinian state in September, should the vote ever be enacted.
In my opinion, I understand Netanyahu's actions this week based on pressure from his conservative base in Isreal. However the concessions he's offering and the demands he's making in return are extremely lopsided, and are simply not rational for lasting peace. We've supported Israel unconditionally for far too long, which has been a direct obstacle for peace in the region. I'm sick and tired of some pro-Israelites branding those who disagree with Israel's policies as anti-Semetic and ignorant; this has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with practical politics. There's no doubt Israel remains one of our most important allies, but as a hegemonic power we must realize that Israel doesn't have an incentive to act in a peaceful manner due to our unconditional support. Israel takes advantage of our strong relationship to make expansionist demands, and with this, peace can not last.
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/abbas-aide-netanyahus-speech-to-us-congress-is-declaration-of-war-against-palestinians/2011/05/24/AFjDgYAH_story.html?wprss=rss_world
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/May-21/UN-EU-Russia-back-Obamas-Mideast-vision.ashx#axzz1N7nNiDCr
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/7387324.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-double-downs-at-aipac/2011/03/29/AFhx9C9G_blog.html?wprss=right-turn
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Jon Huntsman Tests Waters for Presidential Run
Jon Huntsman, the former the U.S. Ambassador to China under the Obama administration, is currently in New Hampshire testing the waters for a presidential run on the Republican ticket. With relations between the U.S. and China becoming ever more important given Chinas extremely fast growing economy and increased trade between the two countries, I believe Mr. Huntsman is best qualified to run for the Republican party in 2012.
Although I'm personally a supporter of Obama, if I had to choose a Republican candidate, Hunstman would be my pick as the Republican challenger. The relevance of his job during the Obama administration is ever- increasing; fluent in Mandarin and maintaining close relationships with many high Chinese officials, Huntsman is best qualified for the position involving foreign policy. With increased dialogue and trust between China and the U.S, together they can achieve larger and more beneficial world goals. Relations with China had been worsened during the Obama administration, with the U.S. accusing China of fabricating the depreciation of their currency, differences in opinion involving the North/South Korea conflicts, and territorial disputes between China and other American allies. With Huntsman in office relations between the two countries would be mended and broader cooperation on the world stage could be achieved. This could involve many events, involving dealing with North Korea, sanctions against Iran, help in the war on terror, and other goals involving approval in the UN Security Council.
That's not to say I would support Huntsman as president; he is simply a Republican that stands out among many candidates that simply cannot be taken seriously at this time. Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty are in my opinion the only other candidates that have a chance at the Republican ticket. Gingrich is already on his way to plundering his campaign. With a $250,000 account at Tiffany's Jewelry, he's already distancing himself from the average middle class voter, and with the disagreement with Paul Ryan's Republican healthcare plan alternative, he's distancing himself from his conservative base.
Mitt Romney also has contradictions in his past. With strong Republican support for the repeal of the healthcare legislation, Romney had, as Governor, implemented a strikingly similar piece of legislation in his home state, alienating his Republican base. Not only that, but he's a Republican who also supports gay marriage, gun control, and legalized abortion.
Pawlenty lacks the national name recognition and experience on the national stage, and his personal wealth could lead to his downfall. His only advantage is that he's governor of Iowa; the first state with a primary. This is a must win for him; if he loses this, he will simply not have the momentum, and more importantly the donations to continue. A risky run, in my opinion.
Many say part of Huntsman's weakness is the fact that he's been in China the past two years. I disagree; I believe this is one of his strengths, because time away from home equals time away from the microscope. There won't be a lot of obvious dirt to dig up about this man, at least from the past two years. Although only 2% of the public recognize his name, there's plenty of time for Huntsman to develop a positive image for himself, and that will be easy, given his personal wealth and network of connections. Although he worked for the Obama administration, this could alienate his Republican base; fortunately for him, he doesn't yet have a conservative base, and working for Obama could shed him in a favorable light among moderate republicans, independents, and even some democrats (although as of now it is still unclear what his plans for the economy are) who approve of Obama's foreign policies; and it just so happens the Iowa caucus is known for many independent voters. We should remember that few knew Obama back in 2008, and it was the Iowa caucuses that catapulted him into the spot light. I believe the Iowa caucus will be a close battle between Huntsman and Pawlenty.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-22-Jon-Huntsman-campaign-president-obama-New-Hampshire_n.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/analysis-romney-is-the-man-to-catch-in-gop-field-but-others-have-time-to-make-their-case/2011/05/23/AFTbl09G_story_1.html
Although I'm personally a supporter of Obama, if I had to choose a Republican candidate, Hunstman would be my pick as the Republican challenger. The relevance of his job during the Obama administration is ever- increasing; fluent in Mandarin and maintaining close relationships with many high Chinese officials, Huntsman is best qualified for the position involving foreign policy. With increased dialogue and trust between China and the U.S, together they can achieve larger and more beneficial world goals. Relations with China had been worsened during the Obama administration, with the U.S. accusing China of fabricating the depreciation of their currency, differences in opinion involving the North/South Korea conflicts, and territorial disputes between China and other American allies. With Huntsman in office relations between the two countries would be mended and broader cooperation on the world stage could be achieved. This could involve many events, involving dealing with North Korea, sanctions against Iran, help in the war on terror, and other goals involving approval in the UN Security Council.
That's not to say I would support Huntsman as president; he is simply a Republican that stands out among many candidates that simply cannot be taken seriously at this time. Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty are in my opinion the only other candidates that have a chance at the Republican ticket. Gingrich is already on his way to plundering his campaign. With a $250,000 account at Tiffany's Jewelry, he's already distancing himself from the average middle class voter, and with the disagreement with Paul Ryan's Republican healthcare plan alternative, he's distancing himself from his conservative base.
Mitt Romney also has contradictions in his past. With strong Republican support for the repeal of the healthcare legislation, Romney had, as Governor, implemented a strikingly similar piece of legislation in his home state, alienating his Republican base. Not only that, but he's a Republican who also supports gay marriage, gun control, and legalized abortion.
Pawlenty lacks the national name recognition and experience on the national stage, and his personal wealth could lead to his downfall. His only advantage is that he's governor of Iowa; the first state with a primary. This is a must win for him; if he loses this, he will simply not have the momentum, and more importantly the donations to continue. A risky run, in my opinion.
Many say part of Huntsman's weakness is the fact that he's been in China the past two years. I disagree; I believe this is one of his strengths, because time away from home equals time away from the microscope. There won't be a lot of obvious dirt to dig up about this man, at least from the past two years. Although only 2% of the public recognize his name, there's plenty of time for Huntsman to develop a positive image for himself, and that will be easy, given his personal wealth and network of connections. Although he worked for the Obama administration, this could alienate his Republican base; fortunately for him, he doesn't yet have a conservative base, and working for Obama could shed him in a favorable light among moderate republicans, independents, and even some democrats (although as of now it is still unclear what his plans for the economy are) who approve of Obama's foreign policies; and it just so happens the Iowa caucus is known for many independent voters. We should remember that few knew Obama back in 2008, and it was the Iowa caucuses that catapulted him into the spot light. I believe the Iowa caucus will be a close battle between Huntsman and Pawlenty.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-22-Jon-Huntsman-campaign-president-obama-New-Hampshire_n.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/analysis-romney-is-the-man-to-catch-in-gop-field-but-others-have-time-to-make-their-case/2011/05/23/AFTbl09G_story_1.html
Sunday, May 22, 2011
"Debunking the Top Seven Myths on Iran's Middle East Policies"
With the news media running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it's easy for sensationalism and nationalistic bias to run rampant through our headlines. This interesting perspective towards Iran and its national ambitions offers an alternative view on the country and it's foreign relations.
Don't get me wrong -- Ahmadinejad remains a very real and serious threat towards innocent people in neighboring countries, especially Israel- but we must remember that every move Iran makes is not a threat against America and its allies- it may not even be a threat at all.
Beeman, the author of this piece, is reacting to a radio program painting Iran as an absolute evil- he best describes the overall thesis in this quote:
"This implication that Iranian influence is somehow negative or evil as opposed to being just what nations do was prevalent in the program."
You can read the full article here:
http://truth-out.org/debunking-top-7-myths-irans-middle-east-policies/1305944848
Don't get me wrong -- Ahmadinejad remains a very real and serious threat towards innocent people in neighboring countries, especially Israel- but we must remember that every move Iran makes is not a threat against America and its allies- it may not even be a threat at all.
Beeman, the author of this piece, is reacting to a radio program painting Iran as an absolute evil- he best describes the overall thesis in this quote:
"This implication that Iranian influence is somehow negative or evil as opposed to being just what nations do was prevalent in the program."
You can read the full article here:
http://truth-out.org/debunking-top-7-myths-irans-middle-east-policies/1305944848
Obama's Middle East Speech Pt. II and Middle Eastern Reactions
In 2009, Obama had made a now-famous speech in Cairo, Egypt to the Middle Eastern world in an attempt to restart the American relationship towards the region, which had been marked by mistrust during the Bush administration. The reaction throughout the Middle East had been full of hope for change of American policy towards the Arab world. Although there had been doubters, a significant portion of Middle Easterners had taken Obama's word.
Fast forward to May 2011, and much has changed in the Middle East; little of this change involving American policy. Obama had made promises in 2009 about re-establishing trust between the region and America, a promise many say had been broken; with military intervention in Libya and Yemen, as well as continued presence in Iraq, and Afghanistan, little has changed involving America in the Middle East.
Democratic revolution had indeed changed in the Arab world during the Arab Spring, but none of it had to do with Obama nor any American presence, despite Obama supporting these uprisings. If anything, it is American resources in Egypt and Yemen (through U.S. security aid to Mubarak and Saleh) that had helped suppress these uprisings. Obama's promises of trust to the Middle Eastern world in 2009, although inspirational, were empty promises.
When giving his speech a few days ago, the reaction among Middle Easterners was justified; they were simply not impressed and in a sense ignored his call for a 'reset button' on relations between the two. Although in his May 2011 speech Obama announced initiatives giving aid to these newly born democracies (Tunisia/Egypt), it had mostly fallen on deaf ears. This is simply because in the last six months of the Arab Spring, America has become irrelevant as a player in politics throughout the Middle East. In Obama's and the State Department's defense, however, there were no early signs that revolution was imminent even weeks before the first protests triggered in Tunisia.
Regardless, the Obama Administration had become powerless in these affairs, because the people had taken matters into their own hands, without any help from foreigners (exception being Libya, in which war still drags on). The people's indifferent reaction to Obama's speech, even in the wake of his ground breaking policy of using the pre-1967 borders for the Israel/Palestine conflict, is understandable as much as it should be expected. America's favorite excuse for meddling in foreign affairs is the continued goal of democratization, an excuse that no longer applies to them.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post had put it best:
"The backdrop of this frantic self-preservation is the breakup of America’s reluctant empire. The kings and presidents (not to mention people in the streets) saw in Egypt that the United States wouldn’t rescue its clients. Exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan (and perhaps also made wiser by these wars), America wasn’t in the business of saving autocratic dictators."
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/obama-speech-greeted-with-skepticism-yawns-in-mideast/2011/05/19/AFfVhI7G_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/writing-the-middle-easts-new-narrative/2011/05/17/AFTmAm6G_story.html
Fast forward to May 2011, and much has changed in the Middle East; little of this change involving American policy. Obama had made promises in 2009 about re-establishing trust between the region and America, a promise many say had been broken; with military intervention in Libya and Yemen, as well as continued presence in Iraq, and Afghanistan, little has changed involving America in the Middle East.
Democratic revolution had indeed changed in the Arab world during the Arab Spring, but none of it had to do with Obama nor any American presence, despite Obama supporting these uprisings. If anything, it is American resources in Egypt and Yemen (through U.S. security aid to Mubarak and Saleh) that had helped suppress these uprisings. Obama's promises of trust to the Middle Eastern world in 2009, although inspirational, were empty promises.
When giving his speech a few days ago, the reaction among Middle Easterners was justified; they were simply not impressed and in a sense ignored his call for a 'reset button' on relations between the two. Although in his May 2011 speech Obama announced initiatives giving aid to these newly born democracies (Tunisia/Egypt), it had mostly fallen on deaf ears. This is simply because in the last six months of the Arab Spring, America has become irrelevant as a player in politics throughout the Middle East. In Obama's and the State Department's defense, however, there were no early signs that revolution was imminent even weeks before the first protests triggered in Tunisia.
Regardless, the Obama Administration had become powerless in these affairs, because the people had taken matters into their own hands, without any help from foreigners (exception being Libya, in which war still drags on). The people's indifferent reaction to Obama's speech, even in the wake of his ground breaking policy of using the pre-1967 borders for the Israel/Palestine conflict, is understandable as much as it should be expected. America's favorite excuse for meddling in foreign affairs is the continued goal of democratization, an excuse that no longer applies to them.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post had put it best:
"The backdrop of this frantic self-preservation is the breakup of America’s reluctant empire. The kings and presidents (not to mention people in the streets) saw in Egypt that the United States wouldn’t rescue its clients. Exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan (and perhaps also made wiser by these wars), America wasn’t in the business of saving autocratic dictators."
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/obama-speech-greeted-with-skepticism-yawns-in-mideast/2011/05/19/AFfVhI7G_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/writing-the-middle-easts-new-narrative/2011/05/17/AFTmAm6G_story.html
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Deal Forged Forcing Yemini Leader From Power
The Yemeni opposition signed a deal today creating groundwork for the removal of President Ali Abdullah Saleh from power. Although small differences remain, Saleh is expected to sign the deal in a transfer of power.
This puts the U.S. in an awkward position yet again (the first being Mubarak of Egypt). Another strategic ally, which had clung to power through force and oppression had lost legitimacy, and the U.S. had to bail on their support. Although the U.S. had urged Saleh to sign the deal ending his tenure in power, U.S. interests have an uncertain future in Yemen. In recent years, Yemen, with poverty and vast tracts of lawlessness in its tribal areas, had become a training and recruitment ground for Al Qaeda. Saleh had enjoyed relative stability through deals with tribal leaders, resource distribution for loyalty, and brutal oppression of opposition, up until the Arab Spring when many thousands of protesters challenged his authority. Yemen had also become the recipient of billions of dollars of anti terrorism aid from the United States, and Saleh had also let the U.S. conduct air strikes against Qaeda leaders in his territory last year (although it was kept secret until months later).
With a new, democratically elected leader comes policy change; the policy views of the public (and thus their elected leaders) could contrast American interests. With Yemen in deep poverty, these policy changes could lead to an increased breeding ground for Qaeda and other extremist interests; often people recruited for extremist activity are already in desperate situations, and are prone to manipulation to achieve change. It is unclear whether Yemen will continue receiving U.S. Aid in exchange for anti-terrorism policy, which should be interesting to follow in the future.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/21/yemen.political.deal/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_world
This puts the U.S. in an awkward position yet again (the first being Mubarak of Egypt). Another strategic ally, which had clung to power through force and oppression had lost legitimacy, and the U.S. had to bail on their support. Although the U.S. had urged Saleh to sign the deal ending his tenure in power, U.S. interests have an uncertain future in Yemen. In recent years, Yemen, with poverty and vast tracts of lawlessness in its tribal areas, had become a training and recruitment ground for Al Qaeda. Saleh had enjoyed relative stability through deals with tribal leaders, resource distribution for loyalty, and brutal oppression of opposition, up until the Arab Spring when many thousands of protesters challenged his authority. Yemen had also become the recipient of billions of dollars of anti terrorism aid from the United States, and Saleh had also let the U.S. conduct air strikes against Qaeda leaders in his territory last year (although it was kept secret until months later).
With a new, democratically elected leader comes policy change; the policy views of the public (and thus their elected leaders) could contrast American interests. With Yemen in deep poverty, these policy changes could lead to an increased breeding ground for Qaeda and other extremist interests; often people recruited for extremist activity are already in desperate situations, and are prone to manipulation to achieve change. It is unclear whether Yemen will continue receiving U.S. Aid in exchange for anti-terrorism policy, which should be interesting to follow in the future.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/21/yemen.political.deal/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_world
Friday, May 20, 2011
First Blog Post!
Thank you for being a part of my first blog post! What to expect in future posts:
-Current events that interest me (and should interest you)
- Analysis of these events and how they can perhaps affect me and you
- My own ideas of how foreign relations and policy in general should be executed
- Miscellaneous, yet interesting story topics
-Current events that interest me (and should interest you)
- Analysis of these events and how they can perhaps affect me and you
- My own ideas of how foreign relations and policy in general should be executed
- Miscellaneous, yet interesting story topics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)