Is Real Peace Breaking out in Korea?

What can we look forward to in upcoming dealings with North Korea (officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK)? The first thing to understand is that the main reason the US pays attention to DPRK tyrant Kim Jong-Un is that now he has the atomic bomb, and missiles capable of threatening the US mainland which may at some point be able to carry nuclear warheads. I read today that North Korean diplomats have specifically stated that former Libyan dictator Moammar Khaddafi and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein NOT having the bomb is what allowed the US to overthrow them. The DPRK dictatorship thus clearly sees their nuclear capabilities as enhancing the survival of their regime.

Therefore the most important question in any negotiations is whether Kim will actually give up the capabilities he now has. I think that's pretty far fetched. But if he will, the next question is, what is his price? His first and most likely achievable demand is the lifting of international sanctions. He will also demand an actual peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, the US and South Korea (officially the Republic of Korea, or ROK) signing a non-aggression pact and recognizing the Kim dynasty as the DPRK's legitimate rulers. If these are the extent of Kim’s demands they are probably attainable. The verification of the liquidation of the North’s nukes, program and plutonium would be major sticking points. It must not be forgotten that the regime has agreed in the past to ending its program but has always reneged.

But will his price also include the withdrawal of US forces from ROK?  The severing of the US-ROK defense treaty? Perhaps even withdrawal of US forces from and ending its defense treaty with Japan? These are all probable DPRK demands, but not plausible US gives in any normal administration. There may be a cosmetic thawing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but the chances of real lasting peace under conditions honestly adhered to by the murderous and tyrannical North Korean regime are, in my view, very small.

Even GOP Congress Doesn't Trust Trump

Congress has now made it quite clear it doesn't trust President Donald Trump--and that includes Republicans as well as Democrats. The House voted 419-3 to toughen economic sanctions against Russia, North Korea and Iran. The Senate followed suit with a 98-2 vote, introduced by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn). What's especially noteworthy about these bills is an unprecedented clause that the president cannot unilaterally relax sanctions on his own. Instead, if he wants to do so, the bills give congress the authority to hold a vote within 30 days to reverse the president's decision. Read the details here. 

This is highly unusual. Most of the time sanctions are imposed when a foreign nation is found to be doing such things as violating international law or human rights, committing aggression or supporting terrorism. Presidents are routinely given the authority to roll back the sanctions following an executive branch finding that the offending nation has ceased its objectionable behavior. In this case Iran's violation is in supporting terrorism, North Korea's are its nuclear and missile development programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and its treaty obligations, and Russia's include aggression against Ukraine and its meddling in the U.S. 2016 presidential election.

Corker and overwhelming supermajorities in both houses are extremely concerned Trump might relax sanctions, particularly against Russia, on his own. He continues to deny or minimize Russian election interference and praise Russian strongman and civil rights abuser Vladimir Putin. The margins of these votes are a clear signal to Trump that if he vetoes the bill congress has the votes to easily override him and pass the legislation with better than the two-thirds majority required by the constitution. That a Republican-majority congress would pass a bill so limiting a Republican president's ability to exercise a customary function speaks volumes about how little even the members of his own party trust this president to act in the national interest when it comes to foreign policy.     

Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Yesterday's interim nuclear agreement between Iran and the six powers is a hopeful step and to be applauded. By it, Iran will dismantle part of its nuclear program, scale back the rest to a level that cannot be used to make fissile uranium, and submit to rigorous inspections. In return, crippling international sanctions will be relaxed contingent on Iranian compliance with the agreement.

The five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia, China) plus Germany had set a deadline for agreement by June, but had established March 31 as a date to determine whether enough progress was being made to continue the talks. They were close enough to continue through April 1, when the overall framework was agreed upon.  

British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said “This is well beyond what many of us thought possible even 18 months ago.” He continued,“There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved,” he said.

Here are the pertinent details as reported by the The Guardian:

• Iran’s infrastructure for uranium enrichment will be reduced by more than two thirds, from 19,000 installed centrifuges, to 6,104, of which only 5,060 will be used for uranium enrichment, for a period of 10 years.
• Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for a period of 15 years.
• Iran’s heavy water reactor will be redesigned so it produces only tiny amounts of plutonium.
• Iran’s underground enrichment plant at Fordow will be turned into a research centre for medical and scientific work.
• Iran will be open to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 20 years.

This is a reasonable agreement in terms of making sure Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb without going to war. Critics such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and congressional Republicans are not happy. They seem to feel no deal will be enforceable and that Iran will find a way to cheat  The agreement is stringent and should minimize the possibility. Yet if it happens, we will be back to where we are anyway: President Obama has stated he is on the same page as the war hawks in that case. He has said Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that if it appears close to that goal the U.S. will use "any means necessary," an obvious reference to military attack, to prevent it. So Netanyahu, Sens. Tom Cotton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would scrap negotiations and leave only the certainty of war with Iran. That's not a desirable eventuality, as one would think they might have learned something from the expected easy triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and the other five powers are right to pursue the path of peace. Iran is submitting to the reversal of all aspects of its program that could lead to a bomb, and to intrusive inspections to keep it that way. Bringing Iran back into normal international relations could have a stabilizing effect on the entire Middle East, and if the effort fails we can always resort to he military option anyway. A few details of logistics still have to be worked out by June. The war hawks have nothing to offer, and it is high time to move and get on with this.

Recognition of Cuba!

The big news this week is President Obama's announcement that diplomatic relations will be restored with Cuba.  See his full speech here.  This move was long overdue, and it's a measure of Obama's pragmatism that he was the president to finally end an outmoded strategy that had stopped serving  the interests of both the United States and the Cuban people decades ago.  Further, it's another example of the president making good on his stated resolve to take all the steps he unilaterally can under his constitutional executive powers to make progress on solving any number of festering national problems.

After four years of futilely seeking common ground with the congressional Republican majority, it's ironic that GOP victory in the 2014 midterms has released Obama from political concerns and freed him to do what is right in the humanitarian and national interest.  First came his groundbreaking agreement with China on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, next was his  Executive Order on immigration enforcement, and now comes recognition of Cuba.  That is something congress can do nothing about, though they alone can remove the economic sanctions still in place against the island nation. 

The diplomatic recognition follows the formula laid out over 190 years ago in the Monroe Doctrine, that in dealing with foreign powers the United States will "consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us..."  Thus diplomatic recognition is not a "reward" bestowed on governments we approve of, it is a recognition of the facts of political life.  It is also a bow to the reality that we can have no influence over a nation with which we have no relations.  It is a childish notion indeed that we can hold our breath and stop speaking to a government and that they then will capitulate to all our wishes.  It hasn't worked for 53 years, and dead-enders who want to continue the policy do so reflexively, with no serious way forward in prospect.  Indeed, the history of our relations with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China and others, give every indication that establishing relations with former adversaries and increasing their contacts with American people and commerce accelerate changes for the good in such closed societies. 

The ability to keep nine exploratory sessions so secret with Cuba is a marvel in today's media climate, involving as they did not only the U.S. and Cuba but also the good offices of Canada and the Vatican.  One wonders what other remarkable and long-needed initiatives the Obama Administration may have in store.  I'm betting there are more, and that most of them will inspire apoplexy among congressional Republicans.  That will make them all the more delightful.   
         

Oil Prices Plunge at the Intersection of Economics and Politics

There has been a rather amazing decline in the price of oil lately.  Crude was as high as $115 a barrel in June, but is now going for $80.  That's an amazing 30% drop in four months.  This has resulted in big drops in the price of gas at the pump.  The nationwide average was as high as $4.11 a gallon in 2008, stood at $3.94 in April of 2012, was at $3.69 this year in June, and now is down to $3.12.  Source US Energy Information Service.   That reduction amounts to 57 cents a gallon in four months, a 15 percent savings so far, with likely more to come as the full drop in the price of crude works its way through the chain.

The first thing to comment on is that this is having a positive economic effect.  Despite price wars over fares, for instance, airlines turned in strong profits in the past six months.  The nine largest U.S. carriers saw their net earnings increase to $3.8 billion compared to $1.6 billion over the same period last year.  The main reason?  Lower fuel costs.  It could spur increased consumer spending too, perhaps for Christmas.  Research shows that every one cent drop in the price of gasoline puts $1 billion into the pockets of the American people.

There are some domestic factors driving the price drop.  Part of it is increased efficiency in gas mileage in the U.S. auto fleet, and the beginnings of a real expansion in renewables, both jump-started by Obama administration policies initiated in 2009.  America uses 1.8 million barrels a day less than it did in 2007.  American production is up too, growing from 5.00 million barrels a day in 2008 to 7.44 million a day at present.  Combine these factors together and the U.S. is importing 4 million fewer barrels of foreign oil a day than it did seven years ago.  That's a foreign exchange improvement of about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year--a significant chunk of change, about .8% of GDP, to add to the U.S. economy. 

Just as intriguing are the global forces at work.  In the past, when a global oil glut threatened to erode prices, Saudi Arabia would cut back on its production, making oil scarce and thereby bolstering the price.  This time, however, the Saudis have maintained production and discounted prices to their Asian customers in order to retain market share.  It's very likely there's a geopolitical motive operating here, perhaps even in coordination with the United States.  Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia is in a real contest for dominance in the Middle East with Shi'ite Muslim Iran.  The major flash point is the Syrian Civil War, in which autocratic President Bashar Assad is being supported by Iran and Russia.  Iran is under international sanctions due to its nuclear program, as Russia is for its recent imperialistic moves in Ukraine.  The Saudis and other Sunni oil states have been supporting the opposition.  But another way to cripple Iran's and Russia's efforts would be to strike a heavy blow against the price of oil.  Russia gets 50% of its budget revenue from oil exports, and Iran gets 60% of its from the same source.

The seriousness of Russia's problem is underscored in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which reports, "Russian inflation is at a three year-high, the ruble is trading at new lows, and capital outflows are expected to exceed $100 billion this year. The ruble is under downward pressure both from higher demand for dollars, as companies find it hard to borrow abroad, and from lower oil prices. It has already weakened by more than 20% since the start of the year."  Finance Minister Anton Siluanov publicly warned the Russian Duma (Parliament) that the budget may become untenable.  Expect to see more on this soon.  The economic squeeze on Iran and Russia is not coincidental, and may result in some interesting diplomatic musical chairs in the next few months.  Stay tuned.            

What to Do in Iraq This Time

Iraq is back in the news.  Al Qaeda-inspired militants have descended on the country from the north, overrunning large swaths of territory as Iraqi government troops abandoned their positions and fled.  Why is this happening?  What does it mean?  What should the United States do?

Why this is happening 
This is happening because Iraq is an artificial amalgamation of (mainly) three different groups, created in 1919 by the Versailles Peace Conference that settled affairs after World War I.  The groups don't get along and each wants to run its own affairs independently.  An ethnic group called the Kurds predominates in the northeast.  Sunni Muslims predominate in the north and west.  Shia Muslims predominate in the east and south.  When the area was under the Ottoman Turkish Empire until the end of World War I, Ottoman imperial power kept them all more or less in check.  After that the British Empire moved in and took control, suppressing several rebellions.  After independence Iraq's situation remained turbulent, with coup, counter-coup and revolt remaining the order of the day until Saddam Hussein gained power in 1979.  His totalitarian dictatorship achieved quiet through brutal repression.  Even so, Saddam, a Sunni, had to put down Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions.

The U.S. led invasion of 2003 removed Saddam's dictatorship.  With his repressive power gone, soon Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish militias were engaged in vicious fighting for advantage against each other, and against American, British or other international contingents whenever they were seen as trying to enforce order along lines that any group felt tended to favor its rivals.   Finally, elections installed a government under a Shi'ite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.  There are more Shi'ites in Iraq than the other two groups, explaining why Maliki was elected.  His government was decidedly sectarian, favoring Shi'ites and freezing Sunnis and Kurds out of meaningful power sharing.  The Kurds basically set up their own autonomous region in the northeast and bided their time.  The Sunnis, who are more closely intermingled geographically with the Shia, complained, seethed, and waited for their chance.  It came when the al-Qaeda inspired ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) forces, who are fanatical Sunnis, invaded last week from Syria, where they have been battling Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's regime.   

What it means
Since the end of the Cold War the world has seen the emergence of many smaller states out of what once were larger, multinational states.  The former "republics" of the Soviet Union and the small Slavic nations that were once parts of Yugoslavia are some prominent examples.  What is happening in Iraq means the same thing.  Cohesive peoples who are minorities and being ruled in a discriminatory fashion by other groups want their independence.  Middle Eastern Sunnis and Kurds who find themselves in a nation created by European diplomats a hundred years ago want to have their own countries and rule themselves.

What the United States should do
The U.S. should let nature take its course.  Having three states in what is now Iraq corresponds to the human reality on the ground there.  The history of the region shows that keeping all three groups together under one political order can be maintained only at great cost by coercive power, either by an outside empire willing to make a permanent commitment of time, money and blood, or by an internal dictatorship willing to operate with extreme ruthlessness.  Though enthusiastic in support of the invasion in 2003, by late 2004 the American people barely re-elected the president who started the war, and by 2006 had thrown that president's party out of the majority in both houses of congress.  Though militarists such as Sen. John McCain advocate going back in, they have quickly forgotten how desperate and costly the fighting was that temporarily kept the factions from each others' throats, how futile the idea is in light of Iraqi history, and how rapidly the American people's appetite for the entire exercise soured the last time it was tried.  In 2006 a Delaware senator, Joe Biden, co-wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying that a three-state Iraq, or a weak state with three regions enjoying substantial internal autonomy, was the realistic solution to Iraq's repeated convulsions.  He was right.

Click here for a Washington Post piece showing an ethnic map of Iraq and a link to Biden's NYT article.

Diplomatic Breakthrough with Iran?

The historic agreement just announced with the Islamic Republic of Iran is a good and necessary first step toward preventing that troublesome nation from acquring a nuclear weapon.  The interim accord also represents perhaps a last chance to do so peacefully.  The accord should be supported, because it preserves the prospect of beginning to restore a modicum of stability to the Middle East.

The six-month deal was announced between Iran and six powers, led by the United States.  The other partners are Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.  Here are some of the most important terms Iran must adhere to: International inspectors will be able to visit Iran's facilities every day for the six months to monitor compliance.  Iran will destroy the 20% enriched uranium it already has.  It will accept limitations on producing more 3.5% enriched uranium.  It will get rid of some of the advanced centrifuges it currently has, and will acquire no more new ones.  It will not open its Arak heavy water reactor, potentially capable of producing plutonium.  It will enter into good-faith negotiations for a permanent treaty during this six-month interim period.  These terms are intended to take away Iran's present stockpile and then prevent it from retaining the ability to produce more fuel enriched to a level that makes the jump to nuclear weapon status feasible.    

In exchange, the powers will relax their sanctions a bit, allowing some more sales of Iranian oil and permitting it to re-enter world markets to specified levels in auto parts, gold, and other precious metals.  The easing of sanctions would net Iran about $7 billion in relief over the next six months.  The sanctions are costing the Islamic Republic about $5 billion a month, so even with the interim agreement, they will still be penalized $23 billion of the $30 billion (over 76%) of the economic losses they faced before agreeing to the bargain.

The usual chorus of neoconservative critics attacked the agreement, claiming it lets Iran off the hook too easily.  Senator Lindsey Graham called for harsher sanctions and no deal except Iran agrees to end all enrichment, even at the 3.5% level of purity which can legitimately be used for electrical power generation.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "bad deal."  Senators McCain and Corker apparently are ready to begin bombing Iran any day now.        

The problem with their line of thinking is that this represents a real opportunity to avoid war and begin bringing Iran back into the family of nations.  If it fails or Iran reneges, the military option will still be there.  With daily inspections Iran will not be able to produce a bomb in the next six months.  President Obama has made it clear several times that Iran "Will not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon," and that "all options are on the table" to accomplish this.  Iran knows full well what that means, and the sanctions Obama has initiated and gotten the other powers to accept have been extremely effective.

Why on earth shouldn't we try to resolve things peacefully first?  If this works, the President will have gone a long way toward earning that Peace Prize he received early in his presidency.  If not, we are likely headed for another war in the Middle East.  And after what we have been through over the past 12 years, only a fool would prefer that as a first choice.

Where I Stand on Poison Gas

There is understandably and rightly much talk about Syria right now, and I believe a lot of it misses the point.  The point is poison gas.  Some talk of doing more to encourage negotiations.  Sure, that would be nice.  No doubt that is being pursued behind the scenes by many with good intentions, from Ban Ki Moon to Switzerland to the U.S. State Department.  For me, I do not expect there to be any  negotiations any time soon with Russia and Iran backing one side and the Saudis, Gulf States, Turkey and France backing the other, not until one side feels it has lost on the battlefield and is ready to capitulate.  And none of that matters anyway, when it comes to poison gas. 

A grand strategy would be good.  Do we back all the rebels, just the nice rebels, or stay out?  We seem to be rather unsure.  Most of us don't want to get mired down in the Syrian Civil War.   And I agree we shouldn't.  But that is a separate issue from the use of poison gas, which has been illegal by international agreement since shortly after World War I.  

As for me, I want to live in a world in which nobody ever uses poison gas and the ban on it is strictly enforced.  Whoever uses poison gas needs to gets smacked, and hard.  The calculation of any actor in the future has to include the certainty that if it uses poison gas it will lose its air force and a good many of its other assets capable of delivering more gas.  Ruthless people will do anything they need to do to hold onto power until the cost outweighs the benefits.  Arguments of any rationale that end with the conclusion that we need to let anybody get away with using poison gas are terribly naive, as far as I'm concerned.  We stop this now or we will see more and more of it in the future. That's where I stand.

Obama Masters Foreign Policy

The recent successful end of the rebellion in Libya marks another milestone in President Barack Obama's conduct of foreign policy.  This latest in a remarkable string of successes is all the more striking given the president's lack of international or defense credentials when he ran for office.  It says a lot about his basic outlook, validating a measured and principled approach to the world in contrast to the wasteful, unprincipled and ultimately counterproductive methodology of his predecessor in office. While Obama has certainly shown no aversion to the use of force when he considers it necessary, he has consistently shown an astute capacity to tailor the scale of the action to the need at hand.

On his third day in office, Obama fulfilled campaign promises by signing executive orders ending torture and closing secret CIA prisons.  These actions were met with relief around the world. Juxtaposed with this was his order three months later to kill Somali pirates holding American merchant sea captain Richard Phillips hostage.  The lesson seemed to be that the U.S. could and would stand firm against criminal thuggery and extortion while upholding its traditional principles--that it was not an either/or proposition as the Bush-Cheney administration had contended.  Why not both?

President Obama followed this up with the first visionary appeal by an American president to the people of the Middle East on their own soil with his landmark Cairo Speech of June 4, 2009.  In it he spoke out against the allure of violence by stating, "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."  And in a passage that now sounds prophetic, he continued,

"But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.  Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away...and we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments--provided they govern with respect for their people."

That these words were delivered in the Egypt of the corrupt and oppressive dictator Hosni Mubarak is not inconsequential.  To what extent these appeals contributed to later events may be revealed in  historical studies to come, but it cannot be denied that the American outreach Obama initiated in his early months culminated in the October 9, 2009 announcement that the new president had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.  In the words of the Nobel Committee, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy, and cooperation between peoples...Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics."

This climate was revealed in the Arab Spring of 2011, when the citizens of Tunisia and Egypt successfully agitated for freedom and democracy and ousted their authoritarian rulers.  Uprisings also took place in Libya, Syria and Bahrain.  Obama's adroit handling of the situation in Libya, focused on air support and enlisting the contributions of allies, ultimately resulted in the overthrow of the odious regime of Moammar Ghaddafi without a single American casualty at a cost of about $1.5 billion: a clear delineation from how the Bush Administration went about regime change in Iraq.  There, U.S. boots on the ground resulted in American losses of 4,481 dead and 32,195 wounded at a financial price tag of $757.8 billion in direct costs and possibly $1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, including indirect costs.

Speaking of the inherited wars, Obama personally made the bold decision that killed Osama bin Laden in May despite potential diplomatic fallout with Pakistan, and also recently eliminated English-language Al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen.  His stepped-up use of drone attacks has decimated the terror group's leadership in Pakistan.  Meanwhile, all American forces are scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of this year and Afghanistan by 2014. The Obama scalpel has proven to be a far more effective and economical strategy than the Bush-Cheney bludgeon.  While they excelled at braggadocio and posturing, Obama quietly shows good judgment and gets results.  The contrast could not be more refreshing nor more helpful to America's image and interests. 

President Obama's Address on Libya

President Obama's speech tonight was persuasive in casting the current action in Libya as a humanitarian mission in keeping with American values and interests. If you are a pacifist, of course, you feel that no military action is ever justified. If you are not, this operation is about as reasonably justifiable as any you will ever see. "For decades the United States has served as an anchor of global security and an advocate for human freedom," Obama began. Following close on the heels of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the ferment for freedom in Libya seemed initially on its way to being successful as well. Then the Moammar Gadhafi regime unleashed its air force and tanks. The President recounted how his Administration remained publicly rather quiet while it evacuated the embassy staff and all other Americans who wished to leave. Meanwhile, $33 billion in Libyan assets were frozen. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions and an arms embargo. Then Obama declared Gadhafi had lost his legitimacy and called for him to step down. Instead, the dictator stepped up his indiscriminate actions against civilians. At this point, the UN called for a no-fly zone to protect civilians, NATO began moving forces toward Libya, and the Arab League and the Libyan opposition invited international help. As regime tanks began their assault on Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, the allies, led at first by French and American planes and mainly US cruise missiles, began attacking regime air defenses and the tanks moving on Benghazi. Obama drew the distinction that when genocide was taking place in the Balkans in the 1990s it took more than a year to assemble an international response while thousands died. This time in Libya it was all put together in 31 days. Obama addressed two objections to his action: some say we should not have interfered at all, and others complain that the mission should unequivocally be to target Gadhafi or overthrow his regime. Obama spoke to each. On the former, he maintained that in a case of a brutal tyrant with a record of slaughter on the march and promising "no mercy," when we possessed the means and the international political and military support to avert a bloodbath, not to act would be, "a betrayal of who we are. I refuse to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." He realistically said that to do nothing would be "a signal to all dictators that violence is the best course to cling to power." To those who would like to see more and a policy of US-engineered regime change, Obama said, "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq." He pointed out that, "Eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi deaths and $1 trillion later, that is something we cannot afford to do." Instead, he said the US will hand off most of the active role to a team of partners now. The group includes Britain, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. They will enforce the no-fly zone and "protect civilians," presumably by continuing to destroy regime tanks and artillery if it goes into action. The US will provide support to the coalition and the Libyan opposition. He said that removing Gadhafi, "may take time, but the Libyan people will now be able to determine their own destiny," including building a democratic Libya that would mainly be up to the Libyan people themselves, "as it should be." The $33 billion in frozen assets is to be used to rebuild the country. Obama ended by painting a picture of, "a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and freedoms any longer," and maintained that, "We must stand beside those who share our values. History is on the move, and wherever people long to be free they will find a friend in the United States." That reputation, he argued "is our greatest strength."

Wikileaks Revelations Threaten U.S. Foreign Policy

Yesterday came the latest secret U.S. government revelations from Wikileaks. Last summer it was military communiques from Afghanistan and Iraq; this time it concerned cables from the Department of State. The release of these documents is potentially extremely damaging to American foreign policy. I'll try to shed some light on a few of the most asked questions I hear from people.

Why is this happening? It starts with the lessons of 9/11, when it was determined that American intelligence knew the information needed to prevent the attacks, but agencies failed to share what they knew with each other so no one was able to "connect the dots." Since then data bases have been made much more accessible by other government agencies, often by people of very junior rank. The young man who has been charged with downloading and passing along the military documents is a private, for instance. Information used to be too compartmentalized; now it is too open.

Can Wikileaks or the other press and media outlets who have printed or posted the data be prosecuted? Probably not. The Pentagon Papers case ruled that the First Amendment of the Constitution enshrines freedom of the press as a nearly sacrosanct right. If someone can get the material to the media the media is allowed to print it. That doesn't hold for those who steal the material from the government and provide it to the press. The young man who is charged with divulging the military documents will probably never see the outside of a prison again. The exception might be if Wikileaks can be proved to have "conspired" with people on the inside to steal the top secret material. Then perhaps someone there could be prosecuted. Attorney General Eric Holder said today his office would be looking for evidence to prosecute wherever it could.

What was the most sensitive revelation? That would likely be that several Arab leaders privately urged the United States to strike Iran and attempt to destroy its nuclear facilities. Arabs and Persians (Iranians) have been ethnic rivals for a long time. They also are religious rivals, with most Arabs following the majority Sunni branch of Islam and most Iranians the Shi'ite branch. A nuclear-armed, aggressive Iran is a nightmare for the Arab states in the region. This indicates a high level of Arab-American accord about Iran, but also underscores how the Arab leaders feel they have to keep these ideas from their people.

Why are some observers calling the release of these documents "a diplomatic 9/11?" That's because of the lack of trust in American confidentiality. If foreign leaders feel they cannot confide sensitive matters privately to the U.S. government without them becoming public, then they will be less likely to deal truthfully or productively with America. This is where the real damage could be done. U.S. security agencies will need to develop more effective protocols on sensitive information and better supervision and screening of access to it. Otherwise foreign partners will stop working with us on much of anything important. That would be the kind of coup that America's enemies would absolutely love to see.

Obama's Cairo Speech

Now that it's been four days we can take a look at President Obama's speech to the Muslim world with a bit of distance from some of the partisan and sound bite hoopla. If you read the entire speech one thing that jumps out at you is his willingness to deal directly with a multiplicity of very thorny issues. You can read the entire text in the New York Times here. Because of his background he can talk to foreign Muslims in a way and with a credibility no previous American leader could.

It's clear the president was trying to accomplish several objectives in the address. The first was to drive a wedge between most Muslims and violent extremists. The second was to identify the United States with Muslim aspirations. The third was to sketch the outlines of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. He touched on other issues too--democracy, women's rights, economic development, Iran's nuclear program, pernicious stereotypes--showing that in the international arena, as at home, he doesn't shy from going after big issues in all their complexity. In doing all this, Obama gave the Islamic world a number of assurances or promises by which they can measure him in the months and years ahead.

"So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace." Obama opened with a call for Muslims to reject the message of brutality espoused by "violent extremists." He refers to them as a "small but potent minority" and frequently quoted the Koran to try to place most of his listeners outside their circle. Churchill once said, "If you desire a quality in a person, impute it to him." Obama followed this maxim extensively, as in saying, "Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." Good Muslims, he says, do not behave like these extremists, killing innocent people. To consider the import of his saying such things, can you imagine any other U.S. President being given a hearing to tell good Muslims how they were expected to behave? Such is the international opportunity of having Barack Obama as the American leader.

Obama's second main point was to win friends for the United States. He made a definitive statement: "America is not--and never will be--at war with Islam." He went back into history to cite Morocco as the first nation to recognize the United States and quoted John Adams as desiring friendly relations with Muslim countries. He made sure to mention the seven million American Muslims and said there were 1,200 mosques in the United States. Obama said, "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must also apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known....We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: out of many, one."

In his section on Israeli-Palestinian peace, Obama was perhaps tougher on Israel than any previous American president. He emphasized the U.S. special relationship with Israel, saying, "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based on cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied." Yet he also emphasized, "It is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." He strongly called for a two-state settlement, with separate and sovereign Jewish and Palestinian states existing side by side. "I intend personally to pursue this outcome," he said. "Palestinians must abandon violence," and "recognize Israel's right to exist", but also, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements...It is time for these settlements to stop." Obama signals he may lean on Israel harder than it is used to from American leadership.

The president spoke strongly for American values and confronting murderous extremists, but also built trust by admitting some mistakes and offering promises. Unlike U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, which he justified on grounds of self defense, he referred to Iraq as a "war of choice" where he promised to withdraw U.S. combat forces from the cities by July, from the entire country in 2010, and "to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012." In both countries, he assured, "we pursue no bases and no claim on their territory or resources." He stated, "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."

So with a combination of words, deeds, and promises open to evaluation, the new American president began his task of repairing America's image in the Muslim world, extricating the country safely from its military involvements in the region and taking his shot at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Like most everything else Barack Obama does, it is a straightforward effort to tackle seemingly intractable problems head on, giving due to the importance of factors that have made things so hard but pointing to a shared interest in putting the past in the past in order to make a better future.

After 60 years of frustration in the Middle East I don't think anyone is making rosy predictions of imminent breakthroughs, but the way Obama is approaching things is unquestionably the right way to go. The U.S. and the region will be better off for this speech and the new American stance, and just maybe we will begin to see some real progress. Inspiring a little hope is, after all, one of this president's strong suits.

Diplomatic Movement in Syria?

If you are interested in foreign affairs and world events there are few better places to spend an hour than "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN Sunday mornings. "GPS" in this case stands for Global Public Square. This week was no exception, and featured a remarkable interview with the Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha. You can read the entire transcript here. The bottom line from Syria's ambassador is that he says his country is ready to agree to a permanent peace with Israel.

Such a peace could be along the lines of what currently exists between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Israel would return the Golan, the two countries would exchange recognition and ambassadors, normalize relations and so on. But Moustapha hopes the agreement would go even further, to include a comprehensive and final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Significantly, however, that was not held up as a precondition. "But you have alluded to the Israeli peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. If this is what Israel wants, this can be done." But he went on to propose, "The issue is, shouldn't we at one point arrive to a point in which peace prevails in the Middle East, suffering ends, human dignity is restored to the Palestinian nation?"

The ambassador feels the election of Barack Obama has opened new possibilities. "We thought that America has vindicated herself by electing Obama after eight terrible years with the Bush administration. The ordinary, simple man from Syria was overjoyed." But for his country in particular, Moustapha explained, "However, because of Syria, the major emphasis was on the sentence in which he said that he wants to support the peace process between Syria and Israel. This made news headlines in Syria as compared to the Bush administration that used to oppose peace talks between Syria and Israel. For us in Syria, I think this was a very important message."

He contended the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to sponsor peace talks. He shows an appreciation for Israeli concerns and the special relationship it enjoys with America by saying, "The moment the United States will come in vigorously and tell the Israelis, while we are absolutely committed to your security, we believe that what you are doing is detriment even to your own security on the long term (sic)." Moustapha also praised the naming of former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region, calling him, "A person known for his honesty, integrity, fairness and his capability to deliver."

Though hopes have been dashed many times in the volatile region, this is quite an important set of pronouncements from Syria's official representative to the United States. It affords an opportunity to defuse a dispute between Israel and the third of its four neighbors. Perhaps as importantly, it appears to evidence Syrian willingness to warm up to the United States and reconsider what Zakaria calls its recent "unnatural alliance with normally anti-Arab (and, of course, highly anti-American) Iran." By declaring certain countries pariah states and refusing to engage with them, American diplomacy over the past few years has done much to push them into common cause with each other. So both for reasons of peace and national interest, this is an opening the Obama administration would do well to fully explore.

Box Score from Europe

By all accounts, Barack and Michelle Obama are making quite a splash as they wend their way across Europe. Rapturous crowds shriek excitedly at every glimpse of the American visitors. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany have seized every opportunity to be seen with the Obamas and to conduct joint press conferences with the U.S. President in which they praise his views and leadership qualities. In terms of American image and repairing the general tenor of U.S./European relations it is hard to imagine a better trip. Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. Our allies and their publics are ecstatic.

But what about the substantive results of the conferences so far? The G-20 economic summit and the NATO meeting had serious business on their agendas. Accomplishments here are quite a bit more modest, but important none the less.

At the G-20 Obama reportedly resolved a dispute between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao by direct personal diplomacy. Source. Of the four main topics of the summit: cooperation, anti-protectionism, financial regulation and closing tax havens, Obama's views fared well enough for such a gathering. Cooperation included a $1.1 trillion collective pledge of assistance for the third world that was adopted. Keep in mind that a good part of the rationale for this is to allow the developing nations to continue to buy G-20 exports and you can appreciate its acceptance. Obama's other aim, to encourage the other governments to engage in strong stimulus efforts in their own countries, met with mixed results. The British government of Gordon Brown enthusiastically agreed. The Germans under Angela Merkl feel their safety net is already strong. The French government of Sarkozy says it has done its stimulating and doesn't need to do it again. Today Obama said that no one should, "believe the notion that, somehow, the United States was trying to dictate the budgets of other countries."

On the regulatory matters, all agreed that "complex financial instruments" such as credit default swaps, derivatives and hedge funds must now be brought under strict regulatory oversight. There was also surprising accord on the need to crack down on "tax haven" dodges such as Cayman Islands incorporation and secret Swiss bank accounts. The nitty gritty of getting these things done is far too arcane for quick settlement among many nations at a summit table and will be left to specialists to devise later. While this is unavoidable for practical reasons, it remains to be seen how effective or coordinated the international effort will subsequently be. Some observers are skeptical.

On the NATO front, the Allies agreed to send 3,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan and a few hundred trainers for the Afghan Army and police. While this is a small augmentation and no doubt less than Obama hoped, he will gladly take whatever he can get. Most European publics are not supportive of combat involvement there and to get any leaders to support the U.S. President with anything militarily at this point is a successful outcome for him and certainly more than his predecessor had been able to secure.

All in all, the overall box score must be judged quite successful so far from the American point of view. Both as a campaign event to return the American image to favorability and influence foreign governments through public pressure on their leaders, and substantively in terms of U.S. positions adopted at the forums, the trip has done very well.

The Obamas are next on their way to the Czech Republic before concluding the journey with a visit to Turkey. It will be informative to see how things are received on the edge of Eastern Europe and in the most Westernized part of the Muslim world.

Neocons Back At It

Back in 1997 a group of prominent people interested in foreign policy formed an organization to advance their view of America's role in the world. You can still visit the website of the Project for a New American Century. There you can read the views of such people as William Kristol, Donald Kagan, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld on how the United States needed, in the new post-Soviet world, to increase its military might and use that might to cow the world into submission to American interests during a "New American Century." This new "neoconservative" world view led to the fiasco of the Iraq War, which has empowered Iran, isolated the United States in the region and all but shelved progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question for six years.

Undeterred by the ignominy of the horrendous results of all they advocated, the principals of this band of ideological bulls in the global china shop are at it again. Apparently at least aware that their previous vehicle has lost a bit of credibility thanks not only to its crackpot advocacy of American aggression but also to the pathetic incompetence of some of its central personages in carrying it out (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Senor, Libby, for instance) they have now set up a new think tank to advocate the same lunacy all over again. Like a bad 1950s Wolfman sequel, no matter how many times the monster is killed he always returns in the latest remake at the next full moon. It seems those who call for more defense spending and more war are never at a loss for funding.

The latest apparition is called The Foreign Policy Initiative, an innocuous-sounding name for the same old philosophy of trying to dominate the world through the threat and use of military force. Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Dan Senor are the leading lights, if such is a fair description of what it is they shed on the literate public. It is ironic commentary on society that there is seemingly still a market for ideas that have been so decisively refuted by their application while doing such grievous harm to their practitioners. If the American people ever again put anyone else in power who is in the least way associated with these gentlemen or their schemes they will unfortunately prove themselves richly deserving of all that will thenceforth ensue.

How Will US Handle Multipolar World?

The era of American dominance in world affairs is coming to an end. So says the latest assessment from the U.S. Directorate of National Intelligence. Its report, "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World", paints a picture just seventeen years hence in which, "the U.S. will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world stage," playing "a prominent role in global events" but not the decisive one as in the past.

C. Thomas Finegar, chairman of the National Intelligence Council and the nation's top intel analyst said on Thursday, "The unipolar moment is over, or certainly will be over by 2025." World War II ended in a bipolar world. From 1945 to 1991 the United States and the Soviet Union dominated world events. When the Soviet regime collapsed the "unipolar moment" was created. The U.S. stood as the lone world superpower. Now, with the emergence of China and India, the reassertion of Russia and the consolidation of regional blocs such as the European Union, the pre-war multipolar dynamic is poised to return. An essential question for Americans is, how should the United States adjust to the coming reality?

The keys should be to cultivate self-sufficiency within and multilateral cooperation without. Internally, this is why it is so important now to embark on domestically-produced renewable energy in a big way. It is similarly why we must invest in restoring the national infrastructure to world-class status. The transportation, energy and communications grids especially need immediate attention. Fortunately, these are projects the incoming president-elect is committed to. Pursuing them will also offer the added benefits of internal economic stimulus in a time of recession. Health care and education need attention, too. It is a competitive drag on the U.S. economy to be paying twice as much per capita for a health system as the rest of the developed world while getting poorer results. Inefficiencies like this can no longer be tolerated. In education we are wasting too much of our human capital by making it financially unfeasible for so many of our young people to go to college. Our competitors do not have this problem. Obama's "school for service" proposal is a way to address this. It or something like it must be embraced.

Externally, we will no longer be able to bully and intervene militarily with impunity to get our way. To attempt to do so will only invite similar counterpressure from our international rivals, rivals whose influence and power will be coming ever closer to our own. To continue down this path would be to follow the path of earlier waning imperial powers such as France and the Netherlands, who futilely and at great wasted expense tried to hold onto their colonies in the wake of World War II. Instead, the focus of our diplomacy with the rising powers should be to lock in mutually beneficial arrangements on such topics as regional security, resource allocation, terrorism, immigration, trade, labor standards and the environment.

Iraq and Afghanistan should have shown us how costly and indecisive the war model of addressing foreign problems can be. It may be that extreme rivalry with the rising powers is inevitable, but it ought to be our goal to avoid that if possible and seek the win-win first. It is indeed welcome that the crude and myopic approach of the outgoing administration is giving way to the more forward-looking stance of the new one. Change is never easy, but it is coming. The only real question is how we will manage it: proactively and intelligently or reactively and wastefully. Now is the time to make the intelligent choice.

Hillary Clinton for State?

Last March, after surviving the gauntlet of "Super Tuesday" primaries on February 5 against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama was in the middle of running off eleven consecutive primary and caucus wins. The lead he amassed that month was his margin of victory; Clinton thereafter was never able to close the gap.

One of the little-noticed things Obama did that month in the midst of a frenetic schedule of appearances was to place a call to an author. Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, had written an acclaimed book about the sixteenth president. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln had received the Lincoln Award as the best book about the Civil War in 2005. Obama had read the book and wanted to garner a few further insights about how Lincoln managed his Cabinet, a Cabinet he had stocked with practically every one of the members of his party who had contested him for the nomination.

Obama's inquiry was not idle chatter. He has already tapped one primary season rival, Joe Biden, for the vice presidency. Reports are now rampant that the job of Secretary of State is Senator Clinton's to accept or turn down. Obama is said to have offered her the post when the two met in Chicago. I believe the reports. The Obama campaign up to now has maintained nearly unprecedented message discipline and no one is denying the reports. Just today former President Bill Clinton said his wife "would make a great Secretary of State."

I tend to concur. She is brilliant. She knows foreign and defense policy backward and forward. She knows and has personal relationships with the world's heads of state and government. Her profile is the highest possible, lending the utmost weight and credibility to her diplomacy with global leaders and efforts to assuage the intricacies of the world's trouble spots. Imagine a visit to Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia or even North Korea with Hillary Clinton as diplomat in chief. The effect would be electrifying, several orders of magnitude past what would be generated by John Kerry or Bill Richardson. She has a heart but can also famously be as tough as nails. It is easy to picture her as an altogether formidable chief of American foreign policy.

The potential drawbacks are apparent. Might she undermine the president or prove to be an unmanageable subordinate? Are there more Clinton skeletons in the closet that vetting might turn up, particularly with respect to husband Bill's international foundation and its sources of financial support? And speaking of Bill, might he wind up underfoot, in the way, at odds with and a distraction for Obama and his Administration in general?

The answer, of course is that such problems are certainly possible. Given the competence of the Obama operation so far, however, I am inclined to believe they have been anticipated. Obama seems to want strong people around him. His style is to encourage open debate. Then, when he makes a decision, it is final. His approach will be like Lincoln's-to tie the fates of himself and his erstwhile rivals together so that his success is their success and vice versa.

In a remarkable parallel Lincoln tapped New York Senator William Henry Seward, who had been strongly favored to win the Republican nomination in 1860, for his own Secretary of State. Seward began with the apparent idea that he would be the real power of the Lincoln Administration over the thinly-experienced man from Illinois, but before long he considered Lincoln his best friend and he was among the president's firmest supporters. I too have read Goodwin's book and am sure Obama is mining it for insights into leading such a prominent group and maintaining authority. One trait Obama certainly has no shortage of is self-confidence.

For her part, Clinton is, for all her fame, a relatively junior senator. The landmark legislation coming out of Congress under this administration will, for the most part, have the names of long-serving senators such as Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Levin, Boxer, and yes, probably McCain attached to it. State presents Clinton with the opportunity to achieve some transcendent objectives, far beyond what she is likely to have under her name in the senate anytime soon.

Consider the kinds of issues the next Secretary of State will tackle. An Israeli-Palestinian settlement, for instance. The successor to the Kyoto climate change treaty. A truly effective global working arrangement on terror. Fixing the horrible African mess. Splitting Syria from Iran. Putting Afghanistan back together. And Iraq. Nuclear proliferation, particularly with respect to Iran and North Korea. Finding the appropriate ongoing relationship with Russia. Encouraging constructive development and evolution in the Islamic world so as to promote justice and drain the swamp that engenders extremism.

Hillary Clinton as Senator has earned high marks for doing her homework, learning the ropes, working across party lines where possible and letting the more senior members enjoy the lion's share of credit when credit is due. I have a hunch that if she becomes Secretary of State she will be a better subordinate than many expect. We will have to wait and see what happens, but keep in mind the Obama team has had a transition operation in place already for at least three months now. Watch what unfolds. Unless I miss my guess, what we are about see leading up to the Inauguration and in the weeks immediately following will be like nothing Americans have witnessed before, except among the very elderly. Fasten your seat belt and get ready to be amazed.

China Rising

I hope you were able to look in on the Olympic Opening Ceremony from Beijing last night. What the world witnessed was the coming out party for the next global superpower.

The presentation was a tour de force combining modern technology with ancient philosophy, cooperative effort with individual initiative, beauty with bulk, the sentimental with the inspiring and discipline with creativity. In short, it was a tribute to the yin and the yang, the age-old Chinese search for harmony in the reconciliation and melding of opposites. And it was all done on such a massive scale as to leave no doubt that China is the Leviathan of the world.

China is home to one-fifth of all humanity. It has a GDP now ranked third and on track to be first by 2030. Its population stands at 1.3 billion persons. It still has a larger number of citizens in abject poverty than live in the entire United States, but now also has a larger middle class than does the United States. Its burgeoning metropolitan centers boast infrastructure and amenities that make most American cities embarrassingly decrepit by comparison.

It graduates four times as many engineers a year as do the universities of the United States, and its children outperform ours in comparative tests. They are competitive, have a sense of themselves on the upswing of history and are hungry for more.

Think of China as being where the USA was in 1890. They are at the point of rapid industrialization, where increasing prosperity and opportunity coexist with growing pollution and overcrowding. But they enjoy the benefit of the lessons of our and the other industrialized nations' successes and shortcomings. Last night's program remained mindful of the spiritual and human elements of progress throughout, something Americans often seem to have trouble doing.

China is intrinsically neither our friend nor our enemy. They are a great nation embarked on an exciting path of development that promises great benefits for their people and society. If our society proves unable to inspire its people to a similar dedication, particularly with regards to an ethic of achievement in education, and a commitment to the development and maintenance of a modern infrastructure in all its aspects, we shall surely be easily pushed aside in the next few decades.

Such is the course of the rise and decline of peoples and nations.

No Obama T-Shirts

One of the things I wanted to get in Chicago was a Barack Obama T-shirt, and what better place than in his hometown? I saw some in a store window early in our 5-day stay and thought I could get some later without much difficulty. Boy, was I wrong. I never saw another one the rest of the trip.

They are being sold as fast as shops can get them in. What's surprising is who's buying them. The word is they are a very hot item with foreign tourists, who snatch them up as soon as they see them.

It's not hard to imagine the appeal Barack Obama has to a worldwide audience. He would be the first American President who looks like most of the rest of the world's people. He would be the first who does not have a name originating in the British Isles. He also contrasts with the current President and his presumed opponent on his willingness to at least try talking to adversaries and in his refraining from the language of threat and division in his approach to dealing with the world.

How refreshing it must seem to most of the world's people and governments that Americans might actually elect a leader who would cooperate on global environmental and population problems, who is not on a hair trigger to bomb or invade anyone who disagrees with him, who might finally set the ingenious Americans to developing alternatives to petroleum and who might even make it a priority for the US government to live up to the ideals that used to make the American system the marvel of the world.

And as far as the T-shirt goes, I was told I better order it online like most Americans do. The rest of the world isn't leaving us many on our store shelves. Maybe the Obama campaign can ship a few hundred million of them overseas in the next few months. That might be the way we finally turn this trade deficit around.