America in the World

Obama abandons Bush's plan to protect Europe with missile defence system

The Czech government has confirmed that America has abandoned George W Bush's commitment to build a missile defence system in central Europe.

President Bush had said the system was an essential protection against rogue states attacking Europe with a nuclear-armed missile.

Critics of the Obama administration are suggesting that persistent Russian opposition to the plan is the explanation.  Other theories include the enormous expense at a time when the American budget deficit is growing sharply and also continuing concerns that a missile defence system - first proposed by President Reagan in the early 1980s - is technologically too difficult.  Some believe that a dirty nuclear bomb - smuggled into a major urban centre in a 'suitcase' - is much more likely and a missile defence system offers no protection against it.

Obama administration officials are claiming that the policy shift reflects their belief that Iran's long-range missile plans are less advanced than originally predicted.

Nile Gardiner of Washington's Heritage Foundation is in no doubt that the White House has been intimidated by the Kremlin:

"This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear."

Last November Russia moved its own ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad between Nato member states Lithuania and Poland.  Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had threatened to "neutralise - if necessary - the [US] anti-missile system".

Last week Russia shut the door to tougher sanctions against Iran.  It may be that this U-turn reflects a hope by Washington to trade the missile defence system for Russia pressurising Tehran.  Time will tell.

The Wall Street Journal has an informative background report on this developing story.

'Europe has been sucking on America's tit for sixty years'

Yesterday AITW noted how Europe had failed to respond to Barack Obama's request for help in the post-Bush era. American conservatives such as Charles Krauthammer are angry and accuse President Obama of seeking popularity in Europe at the expense of America's interests.

Bush has gone, Obama is here, but Europe still says no

"And so it was that Barack Hussein Obama visited Europe. In London, he rescued the world economy. In Strasbourg, he healed the Nato alliance. In Prague, he rid the world of nuclear weapons. In Ankara, he reconciled Islam and the west. And on the seventh day, he got back on to Air Force One and disappeared into a cloudless sky. Was it all a dream? I fear so."

- Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times

"Europe listens with shining eyes, it mobs him in its thousands and claps and cheers – but when he says it's time they shared a bit more of the burden, they stare at their shoes."

- Janet Daley in The Daily Telegraph

Although Barack Obama has been greeted with adoring crowds in EVERY European capital, the warmth has not translated into tangible policy results.

European nations have made no long-term additional commitments to Afghanistan and very few combat troops.  Only Britain is ready to increase its commitment of frontline forces - a reminder to the American President of the special relationship.

France and Germany vetoed the President's hope for a more expansionary fiscal policy from Europe.

France and Germany also poured cold water on President Obama's hope for a speedy accession of Turkey into the European Union.

In Ankara yesterday Mr Obama set out the case for accession:

"The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union. (Applause.) We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of both Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in transatlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosphorous. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more.

Now, of course, Turkey has its own responsibilities. And you've made important progress towards membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it's good for EU membership, but because it's right for Turkey.

In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You've lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static -- they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."

President Obama leaves Europe having restored a continent's warmth for America.  His challenge in the remainder of his Presidency is to translate that popular sympathy into practical solidarity.

Max Hastings, writing in the Daily Mail, believes that that will be much easier when the American economy is motoring again: "Once the U.S. is back doing what it does best, providing the engine and inspiration for the world's economic growth, much else will become possible."  We shall have to see if Mr Hastings is right.  Bush was the excuse for European indifference.  Now the excuse is the economy.  At some point Europe will run out of excuses.

Joe Biden points to continuation of Bush's missile defence policy and new spirit of partnership in US foreign policy

In the first major foreign policy speech of the Obama administration, Vice President Joe Biden has addressed the annual Munich Security Conference:

Promising a new spirit of cooperation and a new tone, pasted below are key extracts of Mr Biden's remarks:

The five top challenges facing our young century:

1. "The spread of mass destruction weapons and dangerous diseases;
2. A growing gap between rich and poor;
3. Ethnic animosities and failed states;
4. A rapidly warming planet and uncertain supplies of energy, food, water;
5. The challenge to freedom and security from radical fundamentalism."

America will compromise its ideals in delivering security

"America will not torture. We will uphold the rights of those we bring to justice. And we will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Tough choices lie ahead. As we seek a lasting framework for our common struggle against extremism, we will have to work cooperatively with nations around the world – and we will need your help. For example, we will be asking others to take responsibility for some of those now at Guantanamo. Our security is shared. So, too, is our responsibility to defend it."

Iran can come out of the cold if it gives up its nuclear programme

"We are willing to talk to Iran, and to offer a very clear choice: continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon your illicit nuclear program and support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

America will defeat Islamic extremists as it offers friendship to the Muslim world

"In the Muslim world, a small number of violent extremists are beyond the call of reason. We will defeat them. But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds share the values we hold dear. We will reach them. President Obama has made clear that we will seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect. It was not by accident that he gave his very first interview as President to Al-Arabiya.

[Earlier this week Hillary Clinton announced that her first foreign trip would be to a Muslim nation; Indonesia].

President Bush's missile defence programme will continue

"We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost effective."

America will support a stronger defence role for the EU

"We also support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, a fundamentally stronger NATO-EU partnership and deeper cooperation with countries outside the Alliance who share our common goals and principles."

We do not recognise a Russian 'sphere of influence'

"The United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not recognize a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

> Full speech here.

70% of Britons likely to be less favourable to Obama if he presides over protectionist measures

The European Union and Canada have both publicly warned at the consequences for world trade of provisions in America's draft economic recovery bill that would require all stimulus-funded infrastructure projects to only buy US iron, steel and manufactured goods.

John Bruton, the European Commission's representative in Washington, wrote to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, warning that the current 'buy American' stimulus provisions risk initiating "a spiral of protectionist measures around the globe that can only hurt our economies further."  Canada's Ambassador to the United States worries that "if Buy American becomes part of the stimulus legislation, the United States will lose the moral authority to pressure others not to introduce protectionist policies."

The leader of Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has also attacked provisions that have the public backing of Vice President Joe Biden:

"I don't think we ought to use a measure that is supposed to be timely, temporary and targeted to set off trade wars. The entire world is experiencing a downturn in the economy. I think it's a very bad idea."

There was always a danger that a Democrat takeover of Washington would have serious consequences for trade.  The unions that are such a powerful force in the Democrat party have consistently campaigned against jobs being shipped overseas.  Democrats in Congress are keen to revisit the North American Free Trade Agreement and have opposed free trade pacts with South American states.

A poll of British voters carried out for the London Centre for the Study of Anti-Americanism in August last year found that protectionism was the greatest threat to Obama's popularity.  70% said they were likely to think favourably of him if he introduced measures that stopped some UK companies enjoying access to American markets.

Support for America's role in the world and the Special Relationship grows in Britain

Today's Times reports on a Populus poll that confirms yesterday's tracker poll showing British views of America have improved substantially in recent weeks. The column also notes stronger support in Britain for a close relationship with the United States:

The number thinking that America is a force for good in the world has risen from 44 to 54 per cent since June 2006. Even more striking, the proportion believing “it is important for Britain’s long-term security that we have a close and special relationship with the US” has jumped by 22 points to 80 per cent.

The next US President's foreign policy challenges

"Many international issues now await the authority that can come only from being newly elected to lead what remains the world's only superpower, even in straightened financial circumstances. They are problems that need the power of a president with four or eight years ahead of him in office, to which no US administration in its final months can bring the necessary combination of fresh analysis and staying power."

In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague identifies some of the next American President's leading foreign policy challenges:

• Peace in the Middle East, notably between Israel and Syria: "The most obvious example is the Middle East Peace Process. The world will look to the new President of the United States to apply his efforts to forcing compromises with vigour and determination from the very outset. And that should include encouraging a peace treaty between Israel and Syria, an immensely difficult objective but one that, if achieved, would help to break innumerable deadlocks elsewhere."

• Afghanistan: "The election of a new president and the simultaneous arrival of General David Petraeus at US Central Command provide the opportunity for the Americans to lead the way to a more coherent strategic approach. That must include a huge effort in Kabul to provide better functioning and less easily corrupted national leadership, the more effective co-ordination of international aid and reconstruction, a more clearly unified military command of all NATO forces, an increase in US forces and a continued, sustained improvement in Pakistan's combating of insurgents inside its own frontiers. The United States is the only country in the world that can, with our support, force the pace on all these issues."

• Iran: "In the Conservative Party we have long argued that stopping Iran's nuclear plans will require more carrot from America at the appropriate time and already requires more stick from the nations of Europe. Wide-ranging financial sanctions by the EU and bans on European investment in Iranian oil and gas fields have been proposed by Britain but not agreed in other capitals. The approach to Iran on both sides of the Atlantic needs an urgent injection of strength."

• Russia and Georgia: "It is clear from visiting Georgia, as I did a week ago, that the terms of the August ceasefire have not yet been fully implemented: the movement of Russian forces into parts of South Ossetia in which they were not present before the August invasion make that clear enough. Yet many EU leaders are already itching to get back to "business as usual". To do so with such speed, at a time when an EU-sponsored ceasefire has not been fully respected and the possibility of renewed conflict remains, would send a signal of collective European weakness where there should be united strength."

• Bosnia: "The international community needs to deliver a clear message that all ethnic groups in Bosnia must achieve the goal of living peacefully alongside each other: if Europe's leaders cannot summon up the will to exert the necessary pressure then it will fall to the next President of the United States to do so."

It is perhaps a sign of the enormous progress in Iraq over the last year that Mr Hague chose not to include the defining event of the Bush-Blair years in his article.

The number of Americans with passports doesn't tell us that much

All this week AmericaInTheWorld is spotlighting six key arguments from Justin Webb's 'Have A Nice Day: Behind The Chiches, Giving America Another Chance'.  You can purchase your copy here.

One of the most frequent criticisms of America is the suggestion that Americans are insular.  The fact that 'only' 34% of Americans own a passport is often used to substantiate this point (although the extent of ownership is often understated).

Justin Webb tackles this perception in his book:

"Anti-Americans complain about the attitude of Americans towards the rest of the world, about the insularity of American life, about the percentage of Americans who have passports or have been to Vladivostock or speak fluent Swahili. Yet outsiders - particularly Europeans - often have only the vaguest idea of where Kansas is, or Rhode Island, or indeed New Mexico. And how many British people - proud owners of passports - actually use them only to travel to France or Spain, the equivalent of a jaunt from Chicago to South Carolina, to get some sun and pop home?"

That's the key point.  Do most Brits hold passports for mind-exploring travel?  How many use their passport simply for a beer-fueled weekend in Prague or to enjoy the clubs of Ibiza?  We're not trying to say that holidays in Prague or Ibiza are necessarily wrong; only that a European sense of superiority may be misplaced.

The American landmass is 9,826,630 km²; forty times greater than the land mass of the UK (244,820 km²).  Within the borders of the USA is almost every form of natural attraction.  America is more of a continent than a nation.

Webb turns the tables on Europeans.  Europeans are sniffy about American ignorance of Europe but how many Europeans know that much about America:

"You can be ignorant about how a light bulb works but still cut it in polite society if you know what Proust was getting at.  Similarly among the sophisticates of the world, a knowledge of the geography of Europe (where is Lichtenstein?) counts for a lot more than similar knowledge about the United States.  Where is Nebraska?  Don't care."

So far in this series we have also looked at America's ability to self-correct its mistakes and its status as the last, best but inadequate hope for those still yearning for freedom across the globe.

If Europe's high expectations of Obama are dashed, will he be blamed?

Blake Hounshell writes for Foreign Policy on a question America in the World has explored in our launch poll and a web briefing: will Barack Obama end anti-Americanism and bridge the transatlantic divide?

"The foreign-policy pundits’ usual stern reminder is that Obama will inevitably disappoint. And indeed he might: No politician could possibly live up to the lofty expectations the Democratic candidate set for himself in Berlin. Defeating terrorism, eliminating nuclear weapons, saving the planet from climate change—these are just a few of the ambitious goals Obama laid out in Berlin."

America in the World's launch poll of 2,000 Britons supported this 'stern reminder' - it suggested that high expectations of Obama on issues such as Iran and climate change would, if dashed, significantly impact his global popularity. But Houshell argues that European expectations are shallower and less grounded in the hope of objective policy outcomes:

"Where the pundits go wrong, however, is in assuming that Europeans will become disillusioned when President Obama doesn’t meet their expectations. Take the issue of climate change, where, as far as Europe is concerned, the major substantive policy difference between Obama and Bush lies. Obama’s plan calls for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. It sounds great in theory, and scientists say drastic measures are exactly what is needed.

"Now count the votes in the U.S. Senate for such a radical proposal. The latest version of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill died a painful death, and it was far less ambitious, positing a 65 percent reduction from current levels—which are already far higher than they were in 1990. But NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who has been uniquely prescient on the global warming issue, argues that the current consensus target for stabilizing carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, 450 parts per million (ppm), is already too high, and we must bring that number down to 350 ppm. The measures needed, according to Hansen, are extraordinary. But Europeans—who have generally reduced their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol but not by the daunting amount needed—seem satisfied with Obama’s good intentions, just as they were with Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s wildly unsuccessful, halfhearted attempts to get the United States to adopt Kyoto.

"The evidence, in short, suggests that European publics will be happy to again have a U.S. president who makes all the right noises. After all, how much do ordinary French, Germans, Italians, and others really know about Obama’s policies or how American politics works?"

See also our web briefing: Will anti-Americanism end if Barack Obama becomes President?

Are world citizens in a better position to decide who should be America's next President?

Jonathan Freedland has written an extraordinary article for today's London Guardian.  Judge for yourself but there are two key weaknesses in his argument:

He assumes that world opinion is in a better place to judge the McCain v Obama choice than domestic American opinion.  Within that assumption is a view that (1) political debate within America is poorer than overseas and (2) that the international citizen is well-informed:

• We would contend that the best of the US media - the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times - is at least as good as say the London press.  Anyone who has submitted an op-ed article to either newspaper knows the quality control that these newspapers put writers through.  The blogosphere fact-checks US politicians in ways that do not happen in Europe.  Forty million Americans watched John McCain's address to the Republican Convention.  Nearly as many watched Barack Obama's speech.  Both in full.  How many UK voters have ever watched an hour's speech from David Cameron or Gordon Brown, let alone an American politician?
• Our launch poll showed how ignorant many UK citizens were of America.  They don't know very basic and very important key facts.  Are they well informed about the foreign policies of the candidates let alone their domestic policies?  Take Iraq.  The BBC has hardly covered the progress of the Petraeus surge.  British media opinion decided in 2005/06 that Iraq was a failure and reporting to UK citizens has not provided a serious opportunity to at least think again.

He also infers that a vote against Barack Obama might be racist: "A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president."  Many may assume that - particularly if they are encouraged to by the likes of Mr Freedland and Jacob Weisberg - but as Iain Dale has blogged, many Americans may not vote for him because he is one of the most inexperienced and liberal candidates for the US Presidency ever.  Will Mr Freedland explain that to Guardian readers or will he present the outcome in the worst possible light?  Judging from the cartoon that accompanies his piece (see scan below) our guess is that The Guardian is preparing to present a McCain victory as a terrible snub to the world...