A Letter to the voters Monday, Nov 3 2008

To many Americans, due to fatal economic situation, this election, at least its final phase is primarily about the United States and its internal economic stability. While this is profoundly understandable and justified, I think it is important to acknowledge, that the choice the American public will make tomorrow will have a sound impact upon the whole world, which empirically has already been proved, a sheer amount of attention this election has received by the media worldwide being sufficient evidence supporting my point.

Indeed, America is at the crossroads right now. Two terms of the Bush administration had a devastating impact upon the reputation of the United States as the global source of stability and prosperity. While still retaining its hegemonic prevailing position, it faces economic challenges from emerging giants in Asia and Europe and to the South, also recently dealing with as some commentators state a most formidable economic issue of all time.

I certainly do not belong among those who support the view stating that America faces its hegemonic decline. America still remains a global first power – politically and militarily – Washington remains a Global Rome to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, both in economic, political and foremost cultural terms. Possible impact of the crisis in the face of the rising China and other competitors does not distort this image, for America will most likely retain its position as the most innovative economy in the world – innovation being a critical factor differentiating it from other rising actors.

The situation however is far from where it is supposed to be. Foreign policy conducted by George W. Bush during his 2 terms profoundly turned global public acceptance to American actions, questioning its values, that were appealing to many as lately as 10 years ago. After Iraq key allies from not so distant Cold War era turned their backs and criticized America for its unilateral negligence for the international law and collective security – a system created based on American values and promoted by American political elite.

The next president in terms of foreign relations has a tough assignment – the US foreign doctrine needs to be restructured – shifted from ideological and dichotomist approach to more multilateral and compromise-based co-existence with other actors. America as a leader must face and accept the rise of other regions and states; herein the perception plays a critical role, American leadership should introduce a more ‘plural’ stance towards the new global architecture. The United States will and undeniably should defend its interest, though never it shall not forget that its role and position is no longer what it used to be a decade ago – a position as of now gradually inclined towards a primus inter pares. While the aforementioned state of affairs is far from being accomplished, its stages must be recognized and a proper response to them should be introduced. While rising eastern economies pose a remarkable challenge to America, they ought not to be perceived as threats, rather as partners. America should forget about ‘crusades’, ‘global evil axis’, ‘who’s not with us is against us’ and many more ideological slogans introduced by the former administration. Awareness of this fact, perhaps explains the reason why McCain’s idea of creating a League of Democracies has been announced by the Brookings Institution as one of the worst plans for current foreign policy – it will antagonize China and Russia, which already have worsened relations with the US, while placing them on the same line, a position neglecting remarkable differences between the two in many dimensions from society to politics. Results of approaches that resemble League of Democracies conducted by former administration in Iraq or in the war on terror are commonly known and obviously negative.

War in Afghanistan and in Iraq, economic and environmental issues proved the inevitable fact –that America cannot unilaterally solve every single issue signifying a relative peril towards its own or global security. There can be no further progress in terms of global warming without engaging China, no progress in Afghanistan and Iraq without the support of both regional and European actors, resurgent left-wing radicalism threatening stability of the region will grow stronger in South America if democratic partners of America will be further unconsidered by the US foreign policy, economic challenges will not be averted without cooperation with China and the European Union etc.

Threats to global security – fundamentalist Islam, Iran, North Korea, and other regimes cannot be dealt with using military force. Diplomacy needs to be re-introduced – and diplomacy clearly does not resemble amicable coffee- accompanied conversations – Kissinger-Mao, Reagan – Gorbachev, Albright – Milosevic to name a few, and generally Cold War era legacy were certainly not an instance proving that point. America should acquire a diplomatic stance due to fatal impact of the Iraq war to its reputation; though also due to inevitable peril of military overstretch if another conflict would be introduced without resolving others. For that reason as well, due to pulsation of security situation around the globe, American leadership needs to focus on Afghanistan and resurgent Al Qaeda in Pakistan and provide a clear strategy for withdrawal from Iraq, which does not mean a defeat and will undeniably affect the mobilization of internal political elites to resolve Iraq’s issues on their own, with assistance of the US. War on terror requires reconsideration as well. American leaders need to focus more on repelling the support for radicalism and anti-west ideologies, which obviously cannot be assured with military instruments, constantly resurgent Al Qaeda 7 years after the invasion of Afghanistan proves ineffectiveness of military approach and necessity of using others – supported by soft power terms and diplomacy.

A candidate who in my view is capable of accomplishing the aforementioned goals and many more, which I did not number above, and foremost restoring America’s reputation and position in the world is Barack Obama. Obama calls for the return of multilateral approach to global issues, cooperation, rather that confrontation, diplomacy rather than conflict, realism rather than ideological prejudice, practical engagement rather than antagonizing and fear. Obama’s plan for economy and foreign policy seems to be more compelling, a plan for Iraq is structured, possesses a deadline, unlike McCain’s, who was ‘delicate’ enough to publicly support a hundred year-long presence there if proved necessary. Obama’s strategy involves collective responses to global challenges – a chance to restore influence of an important to global security actor –United Nations, and more prudent decisions considering concerns expressed by the global community. Supported by formidable experts as Joe Biden, Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Buffet and others, Obama represents a new quality combined with old wisdom – credibility, experience and most importantly hope to restore a pre-Bush America, which values and conduct were respected and appealing to the global community.

The choice however is yours, do not forget though– it will affect also those who do not have the right to decide.

One Response »

 

A Frozen Treasure Chest – Cold War in the North Pole? Thursday, Oct 16 2008

The global warming rapidly emerges a serious threat to both environmental and global security. Its impact primarily focuses on the Arctic area though intertwined with it high temperatures as well as gradual melting of the ice will consequently affect all of the world – that however will not occur solely in this very dimension, for the slowly disappearing ice is nowadays somewhat resembling a theatre curtain – it turns the attention of regional states and non-state actors towards – what used to remain underneath it for centuries and now slowly  is being revealed.

In 2004, United States Geological Survey indicated a vast amount (around 1/3) of the world’s total resources of oil and gas to be located under the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean. In the era of consequently rising oil prices that affect every single economy in the world, this opens a broad margin of possibilities towards diversifying energy resources, which if successful, will lead to decreasing the dependency on Middle Eastern oil resources and thereby boosting the investment and economic growth of any country to conduct diversification of its energy sources. Recent statistics highlight a potential existence of an estimated 400 billion oil barrels in the seabed, while 233 billion have already been discovered – a number constantly increasing since the first calculation several years ago – a number that signifies tremendous riches, something that can turn a most peacefully acting state into a violent belligerent.

The international law is a system of regulations, which in this case provides a set of measures defining state’s sovereignty over varying sectors of waters that surround its coast. According to the Law of the Sea, each state apart from 12 nautical mines of his territorial waters has a right to undertake expeditions, drilling and generally to acquire benefits from areas as far as 200 nautical miles, which are referred to as Exclusive Economic Zone of a state. This implies several consequences. The most important relates to the variety of contenders, which as of today includes Russia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the United States.

The race for resource primacy has already begun. There are certain facts that prove tensions are gradually rising to the dangerous tipping point:

· In Norway and Denmark coastal regions experience unprecedented rate of investment and both internal (young population migrating from other parts of the state) and external interest that focuses on that region.

· Last year Russian submarine dived into Arctic seabed to symbolically plant a Russian flag after already claiming 460,000 square miles – an indication that Russia will be a tough player in this competition.

· In response to Russia’s actions, Canada launched a series of maneuvers in the Arctic involving vessels equipped with icebreakers, submarines and 700 soldiers.

· In May 2008, U.S. Army engaged in the series of exercises under a codename “Northern Edge” in Alaska.

· In August, a U.S. ship launched its journey to the Arctic to determine the extent of continental shelf north of Alaska and examine the seabed.

· In September Russian President Dmitri Medvedev delivered a speech at the Security Council stating his willingness to define seabed borders in the Arctic (his alleged unilateral position on this matter was later denied by Russian authorities)

Prudent analysis of the facts may indicate a certain level of disturbance for those facts certainly do not assure peaceful trend of developments in future. The principal threat that could emerge from analyzing the aforementioned is the position of Russia in contrast with the aspirations of the United States. struggling to decrease its dependency on foreign oil. Russian government has profoundly stated its insistence on claiming vast areas that include the North Pole, and previously demonstrated urgency as well as symbolic flag planting does not allow a positive prognosis in terms of a possible reluctance of Russian authorities to resign from some of the postulates. Russia’s new government as well as its predecessors with same respect have delivered many messages reminding the international community that Russia is capable and willing to act assertively in defense of its national interests with little regard to international law and overall reaction of the international community (as Georgian conflict also indicates). How the situation will develop on Russia’s behalf is unknown, however history of recent events and political use of resources by Russian authorities, provides empirical evidence that its position in future negotiations if they will be undertaken – may be firm if not aggressive.

The situation seems to be even more alerting, when we examine capabilities of Russia and the U.S. – the two nations to most probably divide spoils of the North Pole. At first glance, Russia seems to be in a better position. Russia’s military potential is definitely in decline, United States spends a half of the worlds military spending, therefore in terms of military capability, it cannot be equivalent to America’s power. However, what we are experiencing right now is prologue to a race for potential resources, which does not imply ordinary military rivalry, and therefore provides Russia with relative advantage. How? This can be asserted from simple estimation and comparison of the number of icebreaker vessels, which currently are essential to undertake expeditions to investigate the seabed. Russia as of now is in possession of 19 of such vessels, 8 with nuclear engines, while the U.S. Navy can operate only on 4 such vessels with conventional power supply – to be more specific Finland and Canada own 6 and 7 icebreakers respectively. The U.S. government identified this issue as disturbing, a couple of years ago, pressing for more funds to reform its capability to conduct research in the Arctic, though the developments of 9/11 and further President Bush’s war against terror, not to mention Iraq, financially undermined any possibility to gradually to match Russia’s potential in this field. This implies the advantage Russian navy has over the U.S. in investigating currently melting ‘frozen treasure chest’. Other important factor that affects current U.S. position is the problem with ratification by the U.S. Senate of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. The international law provides time to countries interested in claims in the Arctic Ocean who ratified the treaty until 2009 to estimate their claims; the U.S. without ratifying the treaty is a worse position. Question with respect to probability of this conflict being unwinded cannot be answered directly. States involved in the region do not demonstrate any aggresive behavior or do not threaten each other. As of today, it is hard to imagine Russian military to conduct any acts of aggression towards the most prominent military in the world nor against European countries that aspire to take part in the division of the North Pole area. Norway and Denmark are both members of NATO – an arguement strong enough to a expect strong consideration of any hostile decision aimed at these states from Russia. Nevertheless, it is probable that the eventual conflict will not include states with coastal lines but others, also interested in new oil resources, such as rising China or India. Everything is yet to be determined, however it is safe to admit this area of the globe is a constantly ticking bomb, that could errupt into explosion if not properly managed by regulations.

Luckily, as tensions gradually rise among the states with Arctic coastlines, the U.N. tries to control slowly rising ‘oil rush’ within the area. Countries with vital interest in this field held a summit at Greenland in May this year and agreed that it should be the United Nations and above all, the international law to determine who governs what. The U.N. conference covering that issue however is scheduled to be held in 2020, which provided recent developments as well as emerging interest of oil-hungry nations (China and India particularly) might be too late before the contenders lose their temper and turn into hostile conduct towards eacg other.

What could be done? Analysts point out the obvious – diplomacy. United States as the principal world leader and foremost due to its disadvantage in the region should engage in diplomatic talks with contending states to find a common ground, which will not be an easy feat, especially with respect to assertive Russia.  It is in the vital interest of the United States to avoid any unequal share of spoils within the region. Resource prevailence will not change the status quo in terms of America’s standing, though certainly will decrease the gap between the powers, and thus make the global situation more tense. As a matter of fact,the conflict in the region does not seem to be a lucrative option for any of the sides, due to emerging trade outposts along the coastlines, which pump development into areas that were scarcely inhabited a decade ago – primarily in Norway and Canada. American diplomats to promote establishing new rules could turn to their European counterparts, especially those with Arctic coastlines but also to other European oil-importing nations for support to incline Russia and other states into creating an organization that would resemble current-day OPEC – of course with different external policy aspects. Collective response either at a group or a UN level is the only safe resolution to this security challenge. Any unilateral action, as Russia’s conduct has recently proved only increases concern among other nations, and could lead to easily volatile competition. However, this as of now is pure futurology. The situation and its symptoms are not yet severe, though require prudent actions – Current events indicate that the emergence of any serious confrontation is unlikely, especially after reconsideration of Medvedev’s statements and the Greenland conference resulting in shifting decisions towards the United Nations. Nevertheless, this particular détente without precarious diplomacy and engaging all contenders collectively to find a solution may be easily dissolved and turn into new dangerous conflict that could possess the capacity to affect the entire northern hemisphere.

One Response »

 

That one Friday, Oct 10 2008

It has been proved before in this campaign that at some point, where the other side becomes rather desperate, vulnerable  or insecure, the elements of a ‘negative’ campaign have to rise up from under the carpet. To careful observes this is a sad news, for it is the insults and unpleasant language taking the stage, and merits fading away. However, those ascendancies and downfalls in terms of a debate level are inherent in politics, saddening, but always present.

This was also the pre-debate atmosphere last week before another showdown between presidential candidates in Nashville, Tennessee. Both camps exchanged rather ‘unfair’ in terms of courtesy remarks about respective candidates.  Polls indicated increasing, but still not decisive lead of Senator Barack Obama over John McCain, therefore both participants had relative benefits that could be gained from the debate. What thrilled many commentators was McCain’s well-known ability to debate in a town hall fashion, not to mention his insistence and encouragement posed on Obama to participate in such a debate earlier – unfortunately that did not meet Obama’s consent.

The debate especially due to its setting and configuration was in my view the most interesting of ALL to date. Questions posed to the candidates focused on new issues and helped a great deal to draw a more visible line separating both parties and their strategies. The issues under discussion were the same as previously, with heavy emphasis on the economy, which no doubt will play a decisive role until November 4th. Polls show that Americans in general are cautious in their assessments of governmental conduct towards resolving the crisis – and somewhat fear what the future would bring. What post-debate polls also indicate is that Obama in terms of economy won by a two-digit margin over McCain. Indeed, his insight in a situation of Americans throughout the United States was quite impressive. His strategy again, was linking McCain with the Bush administration, and profoundly contrasting it against his vision of America. Obama throughout two debates is extremely consistent on elaborating on his wide range of propositions and neglecting McCain’s remarks regarding his alleged incompetence, or what the Arizona senator recently referred to as ‘risk’. Silence these comments met, which to rock-solid democratic electorate could be deeply disturbing, disappointed his voters in the previous debate – this time, however standard Mccainian – ‘He doesn’t know’ was answered very craftily in a prudent, tame tone.

Senator McCain had a lot at stake in this debate. Polls were consistently in favor of his adversary, it is only the extent to which the lead is estimated , which makes his situation better or worse respectively. His famous capability to impress the crowd during the town hall debates ignited even further the expectations that were addressed to his performance. Indeed, the first few questions posed, he answered in a great fashion, his body language being more firm, straightforward, having a close verbal and physical contact with the audience. Obama did not obviously have his level of experience, which he demonstrated while answering first questions in the middle of the stage and gradually adjusting manner of responding to the audience afterwards. McCain however had to win this debate, to gain more points in the polls, and despite his strong overall image there have been visible signs of either condescension or a bit of uneasiness. It was easy to notice, he would never address Obama directly, focusing either on the audience or Tom Brokaw, never looking him in the eyes. It is hard to distinguish whether it was his desperation or a sense of superiority over his younger adversary when he addressed him using ‘that one’ – which to some observers was clearly impolite and should not have been used in the debate on the national level. In parallel to this – those words raised a rage of discussion in the media, and reached even Michelle Obama in her interview with Larry King – turning a long story to short – undoubtedly did not help him score the points that would make a difference his strategists sought.

If there would be a one thing to say about that debate that brought something new to the political knowledge of the electorate, it is foreign policy. The candidates, thanks to the audience had a chance to elaborate on their future foreign policy doctrines as presidents as well as approaches towards most challenging aspects of America’s current leadership in the world. John McCain referred to Theodore Roosevelt, while describing his view on America’s role and attitude towards the world. ‘Talking softly and carrying a big stick’ is a well known doctrine in terms of American foreign policy tradition. Question here is whether the history and Roosevelt’s views on America will be intertwined with McCain’s and whether they will play an essential part in his foreign policy. The big stick policy derived directly from the Roosevelt Corollary allowed the states as an actor in the international system to act solely in defense of its national interest, furthermore to intervene in domestic affairs [military invasion included] of other nations if proved incapable of maintaining their economic and political stability. Moreover, McCain’s comments (expressed in the debate) are not always soft – ‘seeing KGB in the eyes’ of Russia’s prime minister Vladimir Putin supports this point – for the same sort of imprudent comments were exchanged over the Atlantic during the Cold War – a war, which  Senator McCain does not wish to see revive. That approach may also mean further alienation of the United Nations, (for only the Security Council provides consent for the military intervention) therefore further reducing its importance in global relations, which was one of the calamities of the Bush administration.

Obama on the other hand spoke in a tone specifically clintonian or that of Woodrow Wilson – appealing to American values and to moral responsibility of the United States to  ensure and maintain peace in the world. McCain focused on that as well, though what was different between the two, was the concept of practical approach. Obama while discussing America’s position towards Russia and situation in Afghanistan pointed out the importance of including regional U.S. allies to pursue goals fulfilling both national interests –[‘Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians’ and the European Union] and American values – thereby being inclined to rather collective response to challenges facing the United States. Both candidates however made it clear, that they will act unilaterally, if necessary with force in case of major crisis related to  principal national interests (Israel’s position being one of them).
Who won? Again, it is very difficult to distinguish – however it is safe to admit – if this debate was to be McCain’s breakthrough– it certainly was not. Both candidates maintained their statue from previous debates, with campaign rapidly reaching its end, if that trend persists – factors other than debate performance – including negative campaign and mutual insults will play a larger role – sweeping away the most important – the merits .

One Response »

 

“One heck” of a debate… Sunday, Oct 5 2008

One, distinct clash of vice presidential candidates in this campaign was widely anticipated due to rather tied results of previous showdown between Obama and McCain and stunning media focus on VPs with respect to that. Both candidates had to face and deal with remarkable media pre-debate assessments, especially Gov. Sarah Palin whose -being absolutely delicate – ‘unfortunate’ interview in CBS surprised, and not necessarily in a positive manner, both left and right-oriented commentators and the public in general.

Both candidates had to prove their credibility – Biden his prudence , Palin her experience – which is why this debate and its aftermath appealed precisely to the undecided section of American electorate, for neither of the two participants committed any fatal mistake or undertook a move that would break those solidly decided and turn them towards respective tickets. Biden’s situation seemed more severe :

• being already in advantage (tremendous background and foreign policy credentials),
• being a man (taking Palin down decisively had a risk of turning women voters away attached to it),
• being previously a supporter of war in Iraq and in disagreement with Obama in congressional resolutions regarding that issue, which Gov. Palin pointed out during the debate.

Palin’s situation was no bed of roses either – expectations indicated another gaffes, and troubles with responding to questions regarding state matters. Palin had to dispell her image of incompetence recently drawn in the debate over her credentials , and that was not an easy thing to do.

The organizers focused again on the same issues that were discussed earlier in previous presidential debate, however this one was better prepared in terms of merits. Foreign policy issues were uptaded with Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the climate change. Neither of the candidates showed any sharp-ended differences on the first issue, though we could see entirely different approaches with respect to climate change. Senator Biden and Gov. Palin did not agree upon the causes of global warming, which Biden described as undoubtedly man-made, while Palin did not attribute any shifts in climate with misconduct of men. Palin focused on a well known element of McCain’s eviromental/energy strategy – offshore drilling, and interconnected enviromental issues with U.S. energy situation. Biden prudently highlighted Obama’s postulates for new technologies such as clean coal and the importance of exporting it to primary polluters (one being China) and emphasized on McCain’s lack of commitment for them throughout congressional votings as well as deficiencies in McCain’s enviromental plan.

In general, Senator Biden’s posture in the debate revealed and proved correct, majority of pre-debate comments regarding his approach to this showdown – he did not intend to discredit Palin herself, instead focused primarily on John McCain, which in my view was a correct formula for success. Biden consequently discredited McCain’s strategies in every aspect from the economy to Iran, highlighting fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans, which was necessary after the last debate, where the line was not drawn directly enough. In a very important moment – that is at the end of the debate he elaborated on ‘maverick’ image of republican ticket and intended to slam it down, after numerous repetitions of that phrase in praises raised by Palin – succesfully as I suppose. “Maverick he is not” could without a doubt serve as a catch-phrase of that debate. Biden’s success was also appealing to emotions, which in previous debate was entirely McCain’s field (family values, single parenting and addressing the troops abroad). Obviously that scored few points for him. On the negative side of Biden’s performance it is important to focus on crucial element of Democratic strategy throughout the campaign – which is indicating the Bush administration’s failures. Palin took advantage of Biden’s notorious as she entitled it – ‘finger-pointing’. This should be a warning. Bush administration is certainly not admired among the public, however debating on current issues should be more constructive, over-emphasizing Bush’s failures is not a firm recipe for the White House, and at some point ‘…past is prologue’ may not be enough.

As for Sarah Palin’s performance – it is safe to say that she saved her VP position in this debate. Prior to the debate news media expressed republicans’s concern about whether the choice made by John McCain was right. Her performance will definitely cause reconsideration by aforementioned republican commentators. She spoke directly to the camera, was more opened than Biden and less serious – being able to joke during a debate after such pressure endured before, is a remarkable feat. Palin intended to highlight her experiences derived from governing Alaska – primarily issues of energy and economy. In addition, she advocated McCain’s policies and intended to discredit both Obama (same issues as did McCain previously) and Biden (here questioning his allegedly ambiguous position on war in Iraq). Governor definitely surprised her critics and foes and succeeded in tasks assigned to her by various commentators. Negative aspect in my opinion was her language expressions, statesmen of a statue she aspires to become should rather avoid excessive uses of phrases like ‘Darn right’. What could also be found slightly annoying were her constant praises to McCain, ‘maverick’ being one, and dismissing the necessity of reconsidering some programs from the election strategy due to economic crisis and praising McCain’s leadership skills instead -  being another.  Question at hand now is really the one posed by one of democratic commentators right before the debate: Is letting Palin be Palin as  some commentators indicate should be the right approach while judging credentials of a candidate aspiring for a second most important office in America? To some – Palin’s perfomance does not prove her credibility.

Ultimately, again it is difficult to name a decisive winner. Biden based on merits and performance – as polls show was victorious, though it has to be admitted – both candidates received what they needed from that debate and what was essential to improve their image among the undecided to whom this debate was really addressed.

For more on this debate : http://binarychoice.wordpress.com

Leave a Response »

 

“doesn’t seem to understand” vs. “you were wrong” Sunday, Oct 5 2008

September 26th was a date of the first presidential debate in this campaign. As for every ‘first’ aspect of reality, debate was expected to be one of the most important of all. The expectations at this level however, were not solely a result of a position of this debate within the schedule – what was more important were the issues – monumental both for the American citizens and their economy, America’s standing within the global architecture and international community as a whole. It is obvious that issues at hand – again, economic crisis, foreign policy and national security would attract a great audience domestically and internationally. As a matter of principle, discussion present in the debate was to ascend from campaign-level into an argument-based polemic face to face.

This debate did not seem to meet expectations of its (at least) international audience. It is well known that presidential debates’ sole purpose is to convince voters to vote for given candidates, not introduce new ideas. However, international analysts after viewing this debate may feel slightly uncomfortable. Issues that were discussed were clearly those with immense resonance in American public, others no matter how important to America’s global standing were not elaborated upon – for instance : question of China and relations with NATO and European Union – which are critical [as many analysts highlight] to maintain America’s position in global affairs.

The debate was without a doubt, a repetition of campaign slogans, even within the economic crisis section, which was expected by many to bring some fresh points from both candidates. McCain insisted on ‘cut spending’ strategy, while Obama repeated his ‘help the middle class’. None of the candidates wished to elaborate on which points out of their presidential strategies to abandon to help reinstall the good state of U.S. economy. That however is understandable – this is how votes are lost – and even Jim Lehrer’s question spree did not break any of the two.

When it comes to foreign policy and national security both candidates did not express the majority of their fundamental differences. Most of their dispute was solely concentrated upon Iraq and Afghanistan, question of Russia and that represented something, which in case of foreign policy is inherent – there are issues on which there is simply no discussion for they define what many politicians refer to as national interests.

McCain’s approach to the debate may be asserted very easily – his primary objective being demonstration of experience and simultaneously highlighting inexperience of his adversary. The tools and performance seemed to be very simple – Arizona senator skillfully juggled with the names of states of regions and carefully repeated ‘I’ve been there’ ‘I’ve met with…’, which perhaps represent fabulous knowledge of geography, but not necessarily credibility in foreign policy, however this tactic could persuade few undecided voters.

Obama on the other hand did not seem to intend to demonstrate his experience so radically, it was rather his understanding of global situation as well as the shape of events in areas vital to U.S. national security. He agreed on relatively many issues with McCain, which was picked up by republicans after debate to show his incompetence. His views on challenges facing America seemed to be more progressive, focusing on America’s reputation in the world and the importance of its restoration through educational and diplomatic routes, and of course new technologies, to decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Areas where both candidates had a major quarrel were unsurprisingly Iraq, and Iran. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s positions on Iraq are well known from campaign speeches and rallies. McCain defended his strategy with questions of victory and defeat – continued presence, sustaining a surge and withdrawal being correspondent to aforementioned. Despite the political danger this approach is crafting for republican campaign due to the lack of support among the Americans, senator McCain strongly defends the presence of American troops in Iraq and recommends increase in their numbers. Nevertheless, he did not discuss the strategy or a plan, as to how long would America’s presence in that region would remain. This raises important doubts about the reality of victory through presence, which Senator John McCain referred to, for history demonstrates many examples of completely wrong strategies and unplanned military interventions that turned out to be disastrous, war in Iraq being one of them (at least up to now).

Deriving from his statements during the debate, Obama on the other hand did not seem to be influenced in any major part by the vast group of his advisers and political supporters – Brzezinski, Albright, Kennedy and many more, who provide detailed strategies and ideas on how to stand up towards America’s challenges. These ideas could have a decisive impact upon his performance in this section of the debate, if properly cited – that did not occur to McCain’s advantage.

What is important for stabilizing the situation in the Middle East region (a principal challenge to U.S. security and policy overall) is placing a stronger emphasis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where resurgent Al Qaeda and the Taliban are prevailing step by step, not to mention profoundly organized strategy to control Iran’s nuclear aspirations. It is critical to adhere to reality – America’s role within the international community is no longer based on one goal or strategy it should consist of many approaches dealing with different actors – including principal U.S. allies – for instance the European Union. Surprisingly, a desired vision of EU’s involvement and cooperation (both very important to the U.S. security) in the region was omitted both by the organizers and the candidates. America in order to maintain its current position needs to return to diplomacy as a principal element or tool used to project power and influence. Senator McCain’s vision of engaging Iran without considering diplomatic talks is dangerous – both because it is purely an extension of current administration’s failed policies and because it may lead to severe consequences in the region. As proved by Nixon, Carter and Reagan and their administrations, diplomacy and facing the enemies in diplomatic talks never led to the downfall of American leadership nor its reputation. Ironically, one of McCain’s top advisers on foreign policy, Henry Kissinger – who restored diplomatic relations with China during the Mao era, shares the same views. Nevertheless, the question of whether this is only a slogan scoring additional political points or a major policy shift among the republican strategists is yet to be answered.

Unfortunately, the first debate did not precisely evaluate the credentials of respective candidates and neglected many challenges approaching America. Questions and sections of the debate did not allow any of the two to fully address the most important issues affecting the condition of America’s global position. Instead, we have been offered slogan-based polemic, which did not cover these issues efficiently. The remains are even higher expectations for VP showdown, which hopefully will be more prudently prepared.

Leave a Response »