America in the World

"When freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen."

Perhaps America cannot win. The world protested at George W Bush's America for being an interventionist superpower. Today, in a powerful editorial, The Times of London attacks Barack Obama's foreign policy for a shirking of responsibility to stand with the people of the Arab world and their yearning for freedom:

Obama's lack of leadership: "Addressing cheering crowds in Berlin in July 2008, Mr Obama declared that the burdens of global citizenship united Europe and America. His Administration is shirking those burdens, and presiding over a disturbing erosion of American influence."

Obama's failure to defend freedom: "The Arab world has been roiled by political dissent and violent attempts to suppress it. And when freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen."

Hillary Clinton's feeble diplomacy: "In language as bloodless as its diplomatic impact is feeble, Hillary Clinton declares: “Absent international authorisation, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable.”"

Obama's weakness on Iran: "His indifference to protests in Iran against a patently fraudulent presidential election in 2009 gave an ominous sign of the cast of his diplomacy."

Obama's neglect of the transatlantic relationship: "The transatlantic alliance is founded on shared values rather than personalities. It will survive Mr Obama’s feckless disregard for America’s reputation among its allies and admirers."

Read the full leader in The Times.

A Times leader does not equate to protestors in the streets but if, under Obama's watch, the Arab uprising is crushed, Iran takes decisive steps towards becoming a nuclear power and the special US/UK relationship is broken, who is to say that non-interventionism is at least as deadly?

Obama's America fails as the world's policeman

Under President Obama, America has sought to be liked. It is retreating from its status as the world's policeman.

While the world's attention has been fixed, understandably, on Japan the mercenaries and military under Gaddafi's command have accelerated their brutal attempts to suppress the uprising. First he bombed an ammunition dump, avoiding civilian casualties, to test the west's reaction. When nothing happened he moved to retake control of a few small towns. Again the West did nothing. Now his forces are advancing fearlessly. The consequences for US power are enormous. David Frum is asking the right questions on his blog:

• If Muammar Qaddafi violently suppresses the Libya uprising while America stands by, will Arab and Muslim opinion really believe that we were “neutral”? Or will they believe that we tacitly support Qaddafi – as they believed through the 1990s that we tacitly supported Saddam Hussein?
• What behavior can we expect from a Muammar Qaddafi who survives this uprising? Qaddafi turned to the West after 2003 because he was frightened by the overthrow of Saddam. Having crushed an uprising – and successfully defied an American president – which way will Qaddafi turn next? How confident are you that he won’t revert to terrorism, if not against Europe then against a newly volatile Egypt right next door?
• Iran crushed its uprising in 2009, with impunity. Hezbollah has seized power in Beirut. Hamas holds Gaza. The Muslim Brotherhood is rising in Egypt. Who looks like the ascendant power in the Middle East today? Iran or the United States?
• If you are the king of Saudi Arabia, what conclusions do you draw from the fall of American ally Mubarak and the survival of American enemy Qaddafi?
• If you are the prime minister of Iraq, what conclusions do you draw from the apparent regional ascendency of Iran and the apparent decline of the United States?
• If you are a Libyan insurgent and you are offered arms by international Islamist groups, do you say yes or no?

Read all of his questions here.

The former British Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind has written in today's London Times (£) urging that the Libyan rebels be armed:

"[There] should be an open and urgent supply of the necessary weapons to the insurgents so that they can fight Gaddafi on equal terms. The UN has imposed an arms embargo and some have suggested that this makes illegal any supply of weapons to either side in Libya. The UN Resolution, however, refers to a ban on arms supply to the Libyan “Jamahiriya”, which is Gaddafi’s invented name for the state he controls. It need not prevent supplies to those trying to bring him down. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistake of the Bosnian war — when the UN embargo had much less impact on the Bosnian Serbs who were, already, heavily armed. Having been Defence Secretary at that time I have, in retrospect, felt that that was the most serious mistake made by the UN. Gaddafi could hardly make successful propaganda from such arms supplies to the insurgents. He himself has internationalised the conflict by importing mercenaries from the surrounding countries of North Africa and the Middle East."

British Conservative MP, Mark Pritchard also recommended this course, nearly one week ago.

In his Times piece, Sir Malcolm Rifkind also endorses a no fly zone.

The failure to protect the confidentiality of American diplomats' cables is an extraordinary act of incompetence

Frontpages of some of today's UK Newspapers.

The revelations from the Wikileaks' release of cable traffic between US embassies and the State Department in Washington will hurt the US in a number of ways.

People like Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, will be less likely to confide in the US Ambassador now that he knows his reservations about George Osborne have ended up as public knowledge.

Many world leaders will be offended - although not entirely surprised - at the ways in which they are described by American "diplomats". Afghan President Hamid Karzai was, for example, described as ‘an extremely weak man who did not listen to facts, but was instead easily swayed by anyone who came to report even the most bizarre stories or plots against him’. Italy's Berlusconi was described as "feckless" and "vain". Israel's Netanyahu couldn't keep promises, we learn. France's Sarkozy was described as "think-skinned and authoritarian". Germany's Merkel as lacking creativity.

Most of all, however, they damage American reputation for competence. The bungled early liberation of Iraq, the Katrina fiasco, Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill and now this. How could it have been so easy for one renegade individual to have downloaded all of this sensitive information and passed it to Wikileaks on a USB stick? It's breathtaking incompetence.

Rejecting today's cheap headlines, Bush is right to wait for history’s considered judgement

Mike Magan is a former White House aide to George W. Bush and consultant with Media Intelligence Partners and Halas Strategies.

Winston Churchill once said that we are “two nations divided by a common language.”  With the release of President Bush’s book, “Decision Points,” this famous quote came to mind, especially while listening to various media outlets focus more on American colloquialisms than the underlying fact that President Bush approached governing the United States with decisive actions. Putting principal above popularity meant he did not succumb to what so many politicians do today; governing by what they call consensus. Or, to put it another way, the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps even more interesting is the continued desire by many to paint the former President as a “good ole boy” from Texas who lacked finesse dealing with the Washington political elite.  To add to this they might as well say that this is the case for the United States in general, with the exception of San Francisco and Hollywood, where those who live there are “enlightened.”

This is also particularly true within liberal European countries that continue to rely on the U.S. for global security, and yet feel free to imply that the previous administration had an axe to grind and if no one joined them then they would go it alone.  It is a shame these political leaders and opinion makers don’t actually take the time to appreciate the sacrifices made by men and women of the US armed forces. Men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives to fight for what we in the West believe is a universal human right: freedom.  The freedom to express one’s opinion, vote, worship, and the list goes on.

Just maybe, pundits and journalists should take the former President at his word when he says that he has no wish to shape his legacy, rather, provide personal insight into how he made decisions.  As he says, it will be many years before anyone can provide a considered judgement on his presidency. It is pity that in the world of instant and wrong-headed verdicts, it is pity that more people don’t follow his advice – and indeed that of the former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai who, asked his opinion of the French Revolution, thought it too early to tell.

George W Bush says 'waterboarding' of terrorist suspects saved London from attacks

Many people in the world call it torture but George W Bush and the CIA insist on calling "waterboarding" a form of enhanced interrogation. The former US president believes that waterboarding is not torture because it causes no physical damage and is always conducted in the presence of medical personnel. Barack Obama has disowned the procedure, earning a rebuke from Dick Cheney.

President Bush has been silent since leaving the White House but has just published his memoirs, Decision Points, and in interviews to promote the book, the 43rd US President has defended waterboarding:

"In an interview with The Times, the former US President offered a vigorous defence of the coercive interrogation technique: “Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives.” He denied that waterboarding, which simulates drowning, amounted to torture. Asked if he authorised the use of waterboarding to get information from the captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was unequivocal: “Damn right!” In his new book he writes: “Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.”"

Many British people will be sympathetic with the President's arguments. A YouGov poll, conducted over the weekend, found that 50% supported Britain’s security services using information passed to them by other countries that might have been obtained by torture. That compares with 31% who think it should not be used.

Other highlights from the Times interview:

• Tony Blair is compared to Winston Churchill.
• America will remain the main superpower because of China's internal problems.
• “There were things we got wrong in Iraq, but that cause is eternally right.”

Read more here, behind The Times' paywall.

The Guardian has much more including on his programme for tackling AIDS in the developing world, a programme he describes as "a medical version of the Marshall Plan".

VIDEO FROM NBC ON THE MEMOIRS:
 

Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Libya attack US record on human rights at UN

Representatives of the US State Department have just appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to answer questions from, among others, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

If it wasn't serious the hypocrisy would be funny:

""Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.”

Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.”

North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.”

Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.”"

More here.

The UN has a gift for inappropriate appointments. North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council. It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime's totalitarian nature.

Barack Obama, visiting India, hopes to promote trade

The Wall Street Journal explains the President's economic ambition for his trip to India.

How the World sees America

Forgive us. We've been away for too long. We're now back and promise regular updates.

A good place to start is to look at how the US is currently seen by countries around the world. The following data comes from Pew.

KENYA, NIGERIA, SOUTH KOREA AND POLAND HAVE MOST FAVOURABLE VIEW OF AMERICA...
...JORDAN, EGYPT, PAKISTAN, TURKEY HAVE LEAST FAVOURABLE VIEW

MORE FRENCH CITIZENS HAVE A FAVOURABLE VIEW OF AMERICA THAN BRITONS

More.

SUPPORT WITHIN BRITAIN FOR AMERICA'S PRESIDENT BOOMED AFTER OBAMA WAS ELECTED AND HAS REMAINED STRONG...

THE JUMP WAS MUCH LESS IN INDIA BUT STILL SIGNIFICANT...

Anti-Americanism in seven easy steps

The humanitarian catastrophe in Haiti is turning out to be a classic illustration of anti-Americanism in seven easy steps.

1. Calamitous events take place in a chaotic place (think Bosnia, think Somalia, think Iraq in 1991).
2. The U.N and the U.S intervene.
3. The civil government proves to be useless or malign, or both.  The U.N isn’t up to the job.  The only effective force in sight is the U.S.  According to today’s Guardian, John O’Shea, the head of Goal, a medical charity, has called on the U.S to take charge of the whole operation.  So has a major U.S aid agency (“which declined to be named for political reasons”).
4. There are only two possible outcomes.
5. The U.S takes over.  If this happens, it will be accused of “creating a military occupation under the guise of humanitarian aid” and “occupying” the country outright.  (Apologies, my memory’s failing me.  These criticisms have been aired already.  The first quote’s from President Chavez of Venezuela.  The second’s from Alain Joyandet, France’s “Co-operation Minister”.)
6. The U.S doesn’t take over.  If this happens, it will be criticised for “not doing enough” - and isolationism.
7. So either way, the U.S loses.

I’m not a fully signed-up member of the Stars-and-Stripes fan club.  But there are times when I think: who’d be an American?

Paul Goodman

Bush, Clinton and Obama launch joint appeal for Haiti