The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: foreign affairs
The Evolution Of Joe Biden

The Evolution Of Joe Biden

In 2007, the economy was humming along in the sixth year of an expansion, with unemployment and inflation pleasantly low. But America was mired in two major wars, Osama bin Laden was at large, and the threat of terrorism hung like a thunderhead over the nation. All this gave Joe Biden the idea that the climate was perfect for him to run for president.

He had been chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He had pushed to end the Balkan wars. He had a partition plan to bring peace to Iraq. He could talk about international problems as long as anyone would listen, and then some.

Noting the oft-heard suggestion that he’d make a good secretary of state, Biden urged audiences to ponder his qualifications. “If you’re not capable of being secretary of state,” he asked pointedly, “are you capable of being president in 2008?”

What he didn’t have to say is that no one would have considered rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards for the world’s most important diplomatic job. Even Hillary Clinton’s credentials were inferior to Biden’s. His argument rested on the assumption that for voters in 2008, national security and foreign policy were of overriding importance.

But they weren’t. Democrats nominated Obama, despite his inexperience in global affairs. By the time the election arrived, the economy was in the throes of a severe recession. Americans were too busy worrying about losing their jobs and homes to worry much about terrorists. John McCain, with his prodigious knowledge of foreign relations, lost to Obama, and it wasn’t close.

The international environment doesn’t look much safer today. We are still at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the addition of Syria. Russia is expanding its nuclear arsenal and interfering in our elections.

Islamic State is fomenting terrorism around the world, and including a horrific April attack in Sri Lanka. North Korea is defiantly holding on to its nuclear weapons. Venezuela is on the brink of civil war.

But when Biden spoke at his first campaign rally in Pittsburgh Monday, this is what he had to say about the dangers from foreign enemies: nothing. He apparently has concluded that if Americans didn’t value foreign policy expertise in 2008, they never will.

At his rally, the guardian of national security and international order gave way to the champion of the American worker. Globe-trotting Joe was replaced with Lunch-bucket Joe, who wants to talk about labor unions, not the European Union. “The major moral obligation of our time,” he declared with convincing conviction, “is to restore, rebuild and respect the backbone of America, the middle class.”

The surprising thing is that the public apathy about our security challenges, which was fatal to Biden in 2008, is helping him today. Though the Great Recession is a decade behind us, the economic and psychological damage is not.

Millions of Americans got laid off from their jobs, lost their homes to foreclosure, saw their retirement savings shrink or took out big student loans that they strain to repay. Even during a period of unstoppable economic growth, the anxiety is never far below the surface. And the feeling that the super-rich have prospered at the expense of everyone else continues to simmer.

So far, that mood has worked to the advantage of Biden, who is unusually skilled at addressing economic anxiety. In the latest CNN poll, he has 39 percent support among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, compared to 15 percent for Bernie Sanders and single digits for everyone else. His favorability rating in this group is 81 percent.

Despite being an old white guy known for getting handsy, Biden is the first choice of both white women and black women. While his rivals may get diverted into defending voting rights for prison inmates, abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement or racial reparations, he intends to put a tireless emphasis on matters that affect the mundane economic fortunes of ordinary people.

That makes sense. In the latest Pew Research Center survey, more Americans named the economy as their main priority than any other issue. Terrorism was fourth in the rankings, after health care costs and education.

Other Democratic contenders can address economic issues with fluency and fervor, notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. But when they do, they are playing into Biden’s strength.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

President Obama Is A Tough Leader — Just Look At China

President Obama Is A Tough Leader — Just Look At China

Much of the criticism of President Obama’s foreign policy has been that he projects weakness – that somehow, murderous thugs like ISIL would abandon their posts and flee for their lives if President Obama was just…tougher, somehow.

Projecting toughness in this case, it seems, comes down to talking tough and being willing to risk another world war over every slight, incident, or threat, real or perceived.

It is true that everyone must understand that the U.S. is committed to protecting our allies and interests, no matter the costs. But what does that actually look like? It seems that many of the tough talkers have not thought that far ahead.

An under-discussed example of how President Obama has projected actual toughness in tackling a national security challenge is China. It’s a complex relationship with a nation that is committed to pursuing its own interests – occasionally at the expense of its neighbors, our allies.

The President has never hesitated to push back on the Chinese, not just with rhetoric – though that has been necessary at times – but with actions. Concerned that the Chinese were attempting to occupy international waters by building artificial islands that could be transformed into military installations, the President sent a destroyer through those waters, demonstrating that they did not in fact belong to China and that we were more than capable of projecting the kind of force needed to keep them open.

When hackers compromised the Office of Personnel Management and investigation revealed links to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, President Obama pushed back hard, threatening to sanction companies or individuals who participate in cyber-attacks; and while we have no illusions that China has somehow given up cyber-warfare cold turkey, it forced China to publicly state that they would do just that.

And, recognizing that no progress could be made addressing climate change without the participation of the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the President pushed publicly and privately for China to commit to serious, meaningful reductions in emissions. The result was a landmark bilateral agreement where, for the first time, China agreed to concrete targets for emissions reductions. That, in turn, helped pave the way for the COP21 agreement reached in Paris.

The President also refused to let China set the economic rules of the road in the Pacific – say what you will about some of the details of the Trans Pacific Partnership, but by bringing ourselves closer economically with key allies like Japan and the Philippines, we lift them up, strengthen our own hand, and diminish China’s ability to dominate the region economically. It’s a recognition that drone strikes or special forces represent only one aspect of American power.

Toughness is not about threatening to “carpet bomb” someone or to “bomb the [expletive] out of them.” Blind tough talk accomplishes nothing and risks much.

Rather than tough talk, true leaders are calm and steadfast in the face of multiple threats. True leaders stick to their values and stick by their allies. And a true leader knows that we must use every tool in our arsenal to stare down those threats and take advantages of the opportunities this century offers us.

There has not been as much written about the so-called “pivot to Asia” as there has been about ISIL, but the challenges and opportunities in addressing a rising China are just as great. When historians look back on this period they will note that China repeatedly tested the boundaries and the norms of the international system – and, at each turn, was met by a President who pushed back forcefully in defense of our values, our interests, and our allies.

That is a legacy of toughness that no amount of talk could match.

Brandon Fureigh is the Chief Strategy Officer of the Truman National Security Project.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping during their meeting at the start of the climate summit in Paris November 30, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Supreme Court Debates President’s Power To Keep ‘Israel’ Off Passports

Supreme Court Debates President’s Power To Keep ‘Israel’ Off Passports

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded sharply and closely split Monday by a case challenging the president’s power to refuse to allow the passports of American children born in Jerusalem to be stamped with “Israel.”

The court’s liberal and Jewish justices strongly defended the State Department’s policy — under Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush — against listing Israel or any other nation on the passports of children born in Jerusalem. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim the ancient city as their capital.

Justice Elena Kagan called the move to add Israel to these passports “a very selective ‘vanity plate’ law.” She said it was “shocking” that Congress would seek to meddle in a sensitive foreign policy “tinderbox.”

She was referring to a 2002 authorization bill passed by Congress that included a provision giving U.S. parents a right to have Israel cited on the passports of children born in Jerusalem.

Though Bush signed the broader law, both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to abide by its passport provision. In court, they argued it is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the president’s “exclusive power” over foreign affairs.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed the courts should defer to the State Department. “I’m a judge. I’m not a foreign affairs expect,” he told Alyza Lewin, the lawyer for the Jewish parents who brought the challenge. “What do we as judges do?”

Before she could answer, Justice Antonin Scalia interjected with his answer. Congress has the power to makes the laws, he said, including by declaring war on another country. And if so, he said, it can certainly decide what goes on a passport.

“We do not hold an act of Congress unconstitutional,” Scalia said, just “so we can make nice with the Palestinians.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Samuel A. Alito said they agreed with Scalia and were not troubled by Congress setting rules for passports.

Once again, the outcome probably depends on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and he said he was looking for a compromise position. The State Department could solve the problem, he said, if it issued a “disclaimer.” Regardless of what the passports say, the United States could state it does not recognize Israel or any other nation as having sovereign control over Jerusalem, he said.

Since 1948, the U.S. government has refused to take an official position on the status of Jerusalem. The high court now has several months to decide what U.S. passports will say about American children who are born there.

AFP Photo/Karen Bleier

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Poll: Support For Warmer Relations With Cuba Grows In Miami Area

Poll: Support For Warmer Relations With Cuba Grows In Miami Area

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

Cuban Americans in Miami-Dade County support an end to the U.S. embargo of Cuba, with newer arrivals and the younger generation tending to lead the way in backing diplomatic efforts between the longtime antagonists.

A poll by Florida International University released on Tuesday shows Cubans living in the Miami area generally favor lifting the decades-long embargo against the island, ending travel restrictions and opening full diplomatic relations. The changing demographics of the area, newer arrivals and a younger, second generation are spearheading the change, which seems to mirror national sentiments.

According to the poll, 52 percent of respondents said they oppose continuing the U.S. embargo against Cuba, but the percentage rises to 62 percent among Cuban Americans from 18 to 29 years old. A solid majority, 58 percent of those who arrived to Florida since 1995, said they oppose continuing the embargo, according to the poll.

Of the 1,000 Cuban Americans who were surveyed in the current poll, 48 percent said they favored continuing the embargo. That compares to the 56 percent overall who said they favored it in a 2011 poll and 87 percent in 1991.

Nationally, according to Gallup, 51 percent said in 2009 that they favored ending the embargo and 36 percent said they wanted to keep the embargo.

The new poll of Cuban Americans found that among registered voters, the split is nearly equal, with 51 percent in favor of continuing the embargo and 49 percent saying they oppose its continuation. Support for continuing the embargo is strongest among registered voters who say they are Republican.

The FIU poll has asked the same questions in 11 surveys since 1991. In the current survey, the margin or error is plus or minus about 3 percentage points.

The poll confirms the growing generational gap with younger U.S.-born Cubans and more recent arrivals favoring improved relations. Older Cubans tend to favor tougher sanctions.

For example, nearly 70 percent of those surveyed favored diplomatic relations with Cuba, with younger respondents at 90 percent strongly backing the change. Support for re-establishing diplomatic ties maintains a solid majority among all age groups up to age 70.

Photo: Flippinyank via Flickr