Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Obama Foreign Policy Tag

Posted by Leslie Eastman on January 26, 2015 31 Comments
In determining why Secretary of State John Kerry was not at the Paris march of world leaders denouncing the terror attacks there, I noted he was paving the way for President Obama's upcoming visit to India. This Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted Obama with open arms.
President Obama and his Indian counterpart broke through a five-year impasse on Sunday to pave the way for American companies to build nuclear power plants here as the two countries sought to transform a fraught geopolitical relationship into a fresh partnership for a new era of cooperation. ...The amity between the two leaders was palpable from the start as Mr. Modi broke with protocol to greet Mr. Obama at the airport with a warm handshake and hug. During their later public appearance, Mr. Modi referred to the president as “Barack” and thanked him for his “deep personal commitment” to their friendship. In a toast at a state dinner Sunday evening, Mr. Obama returned the favor, calling Mr. Modi “my partner and friend.” “This new partnership will not happen overnight,” Mr. Obama said at the earlier appearance. “It’s going to take time to build and some patience. But it’s clear from this visit that we have a new and perhaps unprecedented opportunity, and deepening our ties with India is going to remain a top foreign policy priority for my administration.”
A TIMES NOW video offers a glimpse into the initial meeting in India.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 22, 2015 9 Comments
On January 21, 2015, Josh Rogin and Eli Lake at Bloomberg News reported Israeli Mossad Goes Rogue, Warns U.S. on Iran Sanctions:
The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad has broken ranks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, telling U.S. officials and lawmakers that a new Iran sanctions bill in the U.S. Congress would tank the Iran nuclear negotiations. Already, the Barack Obama administration and some leading Republican senators are using the Israeli internal disagreement to undermine support for the bill, authored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez, which would enact new sanctions if current negotiations falter.
In a rare move, the head of Mossad issued a statement denying the reports that he is against sanctions. Israel Matzav has the details and translation:
The above was just posted on TwitLonger by Israel Radio reporter Chico Menashe. Here's my translation: Reaction of the Mossad Chairman to the new crisis with Washington: On 19 January 2015, Mossad Chairman Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American Senators. The meeting took place at the Senators' request, and with the Prime Minister's approval. Contrary to the report, the Mossad Chairman did not say that he opposes additional sanctions against Iran. In the meeting, the Mossad Chairman emphasized the unusual effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 21, 2015 22 Comments
Is there anyone who gets Obama more upset than Bibi Netanyahu? It's not for nothing that unnamed senior administration officials called Netanyahu "chickenshit" and mocked Israel's failure to attack Iran. There is no love lost in that relationship. Remember when Bibi lectured Obama in front of reporters in 2011, setting off a furious reaction? And Obama left Bibi in the White House to go have dinner with the family. And on, and on. Oh, and when Bibi got more standing ovations during a speech to a joint session of Congress than Obama did in his State of the Union? The way Netanyahu dealt with a heckler was classic:

Posted by New Neo on January 16, 2015 17 Comments
In his latest editorial, Leslie Gelb seems both frightened and clueless about Obama. Gelb is a liberal whose foreign policy credentials are impressive if you like this sort of thing. At the age of 77, his resume includes "former correspondent for The New York Times and ...currently President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations," assistant to Jacob Javits, Carter's Assistant Secretary of State, and plenty more that would warm the cockles of most Democrats' hearts. But Gelb writes as though he were Rip Van Winkle just waking up from a long and very deep sleep, one that lasted from January of 2009 till now and encompassed Obama's entire presidency thusfar. How else can you explain this sort of thing?
The failure of Obama or Biden to show up in Paris made clear that most of the president’s team can’t be trusted to conduct U.S national security policy and must be replaced—at once.
Republicans have been thinking that for a long long time---welcome to our world, Gelb. But we're not delusional enough to think it could ever happen. The people Obama has placed there are exactly the people he wants. They do his bidding, and he has no sense that he's failed. More from Gelb:

Posted by New Neo on January 07, 2015 7 Comments
Promises, shmomises:
An air of secrecy surrounds the fate of 53 political prisoners whom Cuba agreed to free in its historic deal with the United States last month, as Washington and Havana’s refusal to publicly identify the dissidents is fueling suspicion over Cuba’s intentions... ...[O]fficials said a prisoner release was not a precondition for renewing diplomatic ties. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that not everyone on the list has been set free yet, but it was always understood that they would be released “in stages.”... The lack of transparency is contributing to a growing sense of concern that Havana will not follow through on its promises.
If there's "a growing sense of concern," it's certainly not on the part of Obama administration officials, for whom this quid pro quo was almost certainly for show. As in many of its "negotiations" with countries hostile to the US, the appearance of getting something in exchange for what we were giving up was only a thin veneer, because the administration was determined to capitulate.

Posted by David Gerstman on January 06, 2015 5 Comments
In an op-ed published in The New York Times on Monday, former American peace negotiator Dennis Ross wrote that it's time to hold the Palestinians responsible for turning down peace.
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton's parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either "no" or no response. They determined that the cost of saying "yes," or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too high. Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations -- which are by definition about mutual concessions -- will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision. But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn't, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course?
Abbas, as Ross noted, torpedoed the American-sponsored peace process last year (just as former Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni recently recounted) only to see political pressure brought to bear on Israel. Ross ends by asking, "But isn't it time to demand the equivalent from the Palestinians on two states for two peoples, and on Israeli security? Isn't it time to ask the Palestinians to respond to proposals and accept resolutions that address Israeli needs and not just their own?"

Posted by David Gerstman on January 01, 2015 3 Comments
Today the New York Times, predictably, blamed Israel for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to internationalize the Palestinians conflict with Israel. According to the Times, it is Israel's fault that Abbas attempted to get the United Nations Security Council to impose an agreement on Israel and, failing that, to apply to join the International Criminal Court (ICC). In an editorial today, The Palestinians' Desperation Move, the Times argues:
Mr. Abbas began this week by insisting that the Security Council approve a resolution to set a deadline for establishing a Palestinian state, including the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank by the end of 2017. After heavy lobbying by the United States and Israel, the resolution received only eight of the nine votes needed to pass in the 15-member council. The fact is, the United States, which voted against the measure, supports a Palestinian state. And France, which broke with the Americans and voted in favor, acknowledged reservations about some of the details. Following this defeat, Mr. Abbas moved swiftly on Wednesday to take an even more provocative step in joining the International Criminal Court, through which the Palestinians could bring charges against Israeli officials for cases against their settlement activities and military operations. While he was under strong pressure from his constituents to do this, he knew well the cost might be great. “There is aggression practiced against our land and our country, and the Security Council has let us down — where shall we go?” Mr. Abbas said at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
Note that the Times describes these moves not as wrong, but as counterproductive.

Posted by David Gerstman on December 24, 2014 1 Comment
In his column yesterday, anti-Israel columnist Roger Cohen of The New York Times talked to Tzipi Livni, candidate for prime minister and Israel's peace negotiator, about why the John Kerry-sponsored peace talks failed earlier this year. Livni tells of the three ways the Palestinians destroyed the peace talks. The administration in March had presented a framework for both sides.
Livni considered it a fair framework, and Netanyahu had indicated willingness to proceed on the basis of it while saying he had reservations. But Abbas declined to give an answer in what his senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, later described as a “difficult” meeting with Obama. Abbas remained evasive on the framework, which was never made public.
One part of the framework was to accept the 1967 lines (really the 1948 armistice lines) as the basis of negotiations. In other words, Netanyahu made a major concession here and Abbas still refused to play ball. Still at the behest of the administration talks continued and a few weeks later, the Palestinians were at it again.
Then, Livni said, she looked up at a television as she awaited a cabinet meeting and saw Abbas signing letters as part of a process to join 15 international agencies — something he had said he would not do before the deadline.
Abbas offered the excuse that Israel was stalling. Still, this was a unilateral action outside the framework of negotiations and a broken promise. Finally, there was this:

Posted by New Neo on December 19, 2014 30 Comments
Marco Rubio, among others, believes that Obama is a bad negotiator, the worst since Carter:
I don't know what [Obama's] intentions are. His foreign policy is at a minimum naive, and perhaps even truly counterproductive to the future of democracy in the region. Just last week we imposed sanctions on human rights violators in Venezuela, but the people who are supporting the Venezuelans in conducting those violations -- literally the Cubans have taken over the Venezuela government, we're actually lifting sanctions on them. How absurd is that? And it's just par for the course, all of these tyrants around the world know the United States can be had. At a minimum I will say this, the president is the worst negotiator we've had as president since at least Jimmy Carter and perhaps in the modern era.
But Rubio is wrong; Obama is not a bad negotiator at all. He is a faux negotiator. And perhaps Rubio even knows this (the hint being "at a minimum") but feels he can't say it or he will be labeled a kook. But I can say it: Obama's intentions here were almost certainly to prop up the Castro government and concede to them, and the negotiations were an excuse to do that. There were no reluctant concessions on the part of Obama, there were eager concessions. As Rich Lowry writes, it's not so much about whether it was time to loosen economic sanctions or not (reasonable people differ on this), it's about how it was done:

Posted by David Gerstman on December 18, 2014 14 Comments
Dueling editorials in the leading liberal papers today take vastly different approaches to the Obama administration's ransoming of Alan Gross from Cuba. On the one hand The New York Times hailed the move (and even featured the editorial translated into Spanish for those Cubans allowed to have internet access):

The administration’s decision to restore full diplomatic relations, take steps to remove Cuba from the State Department list of countries that sponsor terrorism and roll back restrictions on travel and trade is a change in direction that has been strongly supported by this page. The Obama administration is ushering in a transformational era for millions of Cubans who have suffered as a result of more than 50 years of hostility between the two nations.

Mr. Obama could have taken modest, gradual steps toward a thaw. Instead, he has courageously gone as far as he can, within the constraints of an outmoded 1996 law that imposes stiff sanctions on Cuba in the pursuit of regime change.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 17, 2014 69 Comments
Can't say this was on anyone's near term radar. The NY Times reports U.S. and Cuba, in Breakthough, Resume Diplomatic Relations:
The United States will restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba and open an embassy in Havana for the first time in more than a half-century after the release of an American contractor held in prison for five years, American officials said Wednesday. In a deal negotiated during 18 months of secret talks hosted largely by Canada and encouraged by Pope Francis, who hosted a final meeting at the Vatican, President Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba agreed in a telephone call to put aside decades of hostility to find a new relationship between the United States and the island nation just 90 minutes off the American coast. The contractor, Alan Gross, boarded an American government plane bound for the United States on Wednesday morning, and the United States sent back three Cuban spies who have been in an American prison since 1981. American officials said the Cuban spies were swapped for a United States intelligence agent who has been in a Cuban prison for nearly 20 years and said Mr. Gross was not technically part of the swap but released separately on “humanitarian grounds.”

Posted by David Gerstman on December 09, 2014 16 Comments
Last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started the process of dissolving his government coalition to bring about new elections in March of next year. One needn't be a particularly close observer of politics to know that President Barack Obama doesn't much like Netanyahu. Will Obama try to interfere with the Israeli election? Akiva Eldar, a left-wing columnist for Ha'aretz, argues in Al-Monitor that, yes, Obama should make it clear that he prefers any candidate to the incumbent.
Some of President Barack Obama’s advisers came to the conclusion that the time had come to remind the Israelis who is the boss. They encouraged the president to set a detailed outline for a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. They recommend that the process involve a fixed timetable for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 lines and the Arab Peace Initiative. According to the plan, a diet of “carrots” would be provided to the party that adopts the outline, and “sticks” would be the fate of the recalcitrant side. When the Israeli voter goes to the polling booth, he or she would know whether they vote for the carrot or the stick. The Palestinian leadership and public will also clearly envisage the end of the occupation, with the advantages that follow the end of it, vis-a-vis perpetuation of the conflict and the drawbacks involved. ...

Posted by David Gerstman on November 25, 2014 2 Comments
It's interesting to see headlines that the P5+1 talks in Vienna about Iran's nuclear program were called a failure. On one very important level they were a success. No there was no agreement on a long term deal to roll back Iran's nuclear program. But there was an agreement to extend the Joint Plan of Action allowing Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure in place and receive up to seven more months of sanctions relief. In other words for Iran, the negotiations were a tremendous success. Here's the Wall Street Journal (Google link):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 24, 2014 29 Comments
It's not like this was unexpected. Chuck Hagel long has become the fall guy for Obama administration international failures, as we first noted in connection with the Taliban-Bergdahl swap, Taliban-Bergdahl swap unpopular, so … blame Hagel. The lone Republican in the cabinet, Hagel was supposed to lend credibility to Obama's downsizing of the military and retreat from international engagement. Hagel recently announced a realignment and refocus of the military, including some expanded capabilities. Now Hagel is resigning under pressure, according to numerous media reports. Via NBC News:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is stepping down amid criticism of the president’s national security team on a series of global issues, including the threat posed by the militant group known as ISIS. Senior defense officials confirmed to NBC News Monday that Hagel was forced to resign. The officials say the White House has lost confidence in Hagel to carry out his role at the Pentagon. According to one senior official, “He wasn’t up to the job.” Another senior administration official said that Hagel has been discussing a departure from the White House "for several weeks."
More to follow.

Posted by David Gerstman on November 16, 2014 12 Comments
An editorial in The New York Times today about the ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran warns about the dire consequences of the two sides not reaching an agreement.
The consequences of failure to reach an accord would be serious, including the weakening of President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who count as moderates in Iran, and who, like President Obama, have taken a political risk to try to make an agreement happen.
That would be terrible. Rouhani and Zarif would be weakened!  Or would it? How much political power does Rouhini have anyway? And if they have any real political power, how moderate are they anyway? As far as the first question, well, they don't call Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader for nothing. In an investigative report last year, Reuters showed that Khamenei using the organizations under his control has amassed a huge fortune by property seizures. David Daoud recently wrote:
More importantly, the Rahbar [the Supreme Leader] effectively decides who will or will not be the public face of his rule—that is, who will or will not be the president of Iran. Khamenei selects the 12 members of the Shura-ye Neghahban (“Guardian Council”), which is tasked with vetting and approving presidential candidates based on their allegiance to the ideals of the Vilayat-e Faqih. The Western media often calls Iranian leaders like ex-president Mohammad Khatami and current president Hassan Rouhani “moderates” or “reformers,” but the Guardian Council’s policies render such a characterization absurd. No genuine moderate or reformist candidate can get through the Council’s dragnet. In effect, then, the vetting process and the Rahbar’s ultimate authority negate any possibility of material change in Iran’s foreign or domestic policies.
In other words not only is Rouhani not the ultimate power in Iran, he wouldn't have achieved even his limited authority unless he was a true believer in the system. Rouhani is only a "moderate" in that he's willing to talk to the West to achieve his goals, but his goals and views are identical to those of Khamenei.
Accessibility by WAH