photo by rockcohen

When important people come to Brussels, they come for two reasons: NATO and the EU.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden spent time at both during their recent visits, shaking hands, talking up the transatlantic friendship and asking for more help in Afghanistan.

In a smart but long article in Spiegel Online this week, Paul Hockenos wonders whether the European Union or NATO would make the best partner for today’s global challenges.

Like many Europeans, Hockenos see NATO as a US-dominated Cold War relic.  NATO was all about force or at least the threat of force, but issues today, like the threat to security that climate change poses, require more nuanced responses.

NATO’s new “comprehensive approach” to security endows it with a catch-all mandate that changes as new threats or missions arise and has grown to include responsibilities that go far beyond the exercise of military force. But while its mandate has changed, its tools and thinking have lagged behind. There is no better example than NATO’s flagship mission in Afghanistan, where the alliance is confronted with civilian, policing, and humanitarian duties that it cannot possibly carry out.

And while NATO was started to maintain peace in Europe, the new dangers are quite different from the old ones.  Hockenos lists several that NATO isn’t well-equipped to deal with:

• mass migration and refugees
• energy crisis
• nuclear proliferation
• energy crisis
• global warming
• transnational terrorism

And then there are all the hurt feelings in Russia every time a new country moves to join NATO.

The EU, on the other hand, is all about soft power.  Hockenos cites the EU’s transformation of fascist dictatorships in the Mediterranean and communist regimes in eastern and central Europe as soft power successes.  He also mentions that just to discuss membership with the EU, Turkey abolished the death penalty, put its military budget under civilian control and ended prison torture.

Most important for the US is perhaps the size of the EU.  With 450 million people, the EU is the world’s largest exporter and second importer (after the US) of goods and it contributes over half of the world’s foreign aid to developing countries.  And the EU knows about the challenges listed above.

As Hockenos concludes:

If the Euro-Atlantic relationship is going to continue to be a special one, then it has to be on the basis of a partnership of equals, with the United States making important concessions to the Europeans and the Europeans finally stepping up to take care of their own security requirements.

photo by iambigred

City A.M., London’s morning freesheet for businessmen in the City (London’s financial district) raised the ubiquitous spectre of the greatest new American Disappointment in the eyes of the English – Protectionism.

EIC Allister Heath claimed that “Obamanomics” are losing their glossy finish as Bank of America is withdrawing job offers to non-Americans graduating from MBA programs.

The reason? BofA took bailout money and now they cannot replace lost American jobs with foreign ones.

Bank of America has no choice: it is being forced to follow Obama’s protectionist and nationalistic rules. They are a great shame.

Heath fails to mention the new immigration policies instituted by the UK’s own Home Office Border Agency in late February in which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith unveiled tougher standards for foreign workers to work in the UK overall “and to give domestic workers a greater chance of applying first for United Kingdom jobs.”

One of the new measures means they will raise the bar for skilled workers aiming to enter the UK, by raising the qualifications and salary required to a Master’s degree and a minimum salary of £20,000.

Perhaps because the Home Office paid lip-service to the buzzword protectionism in the press release, (literally, “These measures are not about narrow protectionism” – oh ok, then that’s not a problem) they aren’t subjected to the same Salem witch-hunt as easier targets across the Atlantic.

photo by David Katz

Overall impressions of PM Gordon Brown’s visit to Washington DC are a bit of a mixed bag, with some relief that the Special Relationship has been reaffirmed (though some still doubt) – but then there’s still plenty of grumbling about a loss of stature from the heady days of the Blair-Bush BFF phase.

A body language expert at the guardian broke down the interactions between the two, discovering the thing that most Brits take for granted, that Brown needs Obama more than the other way round, and will be the subservient partner in the special relationship.

On Brown’s speech to Congress however, the British press took pleasure at pointing out the hypocrisies of American lawmakers:

And on behalf of the Queen, he adds, “I want to announce an honorary knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy.” The legislature of a nation founded on the rejection of such undemocratic nonsense as the British honours system bursts into tumultuous clapping               Guardian

In the BBC newsroom, every time Brown was greeted by a standing ovation, a chorus of jeers would ring out around the two story mezzanine.

Other papers pointed out some perceived shortcomings in Obama’s hospitality during this visit:

While Tony Blair was invited to Camp David for dinner, an overnight stay, lunch, and more than four hours of talks for his first tete-a-tete with President George W. Bush in 2001, Mr Brown was given only a half-hour meeting and a working lunch.                             Telegraph

The Daily Mail complained that US papers haven’t given Brown’s visit any serious mentions.  They simply do not understand that, as much as the UK press pays attention to every event going on the US (for good or ill), the favor simply is not returned across the Atlantic, as audiences tend to be much more insular.

But while they can complain that there was no “family get-together, nor did the President offer Mr Brown and his wife Sarah a star-studded White House dinner,” the Brits never fail to mention that Brown still beat out Sarkozy in getting across the finish line first.

photo by Chris Donahoe

Among European Union members, the Czech Republic was one of the countries most cozy with the Bush administration. Now President Obama is planning a trip to Europe and has agreed to make a stop and a speech in Prague. There he will meet with European Union leaders and Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek. The Czech Republic currently holds the rotating EU presidency.

But as this Bloomberg article explains, the relationship between the U.S. and Europe’s former communist states may actually have been complicated by Obama’s election.

Eastern European governments that ran political risks to support former President George W. Bush’s security policies are now concerned that his successor, Barack Obama, will backtrack on those regional commitments.

 Worse is news that Obama offered to abandon the missile defense system plans for Poland and Czech Republic in exchange for Russia’s cooperation on Iran. Now it’s a question of what to do when your friend’s friends are your enemies. (Unlike here where we were talking about the enemies of the enemies of the U.S.)

Concern is particularly acute now because of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s recent muscle-flexing, including last year’s war in Georgia and this year’s natural-gas dispute with Ukraine.

Obama will be heading to Prague for after a the G20 summit in London and to France and Germany for the 60th anniversary of the founding of NATO.

The United States and the United Kingdom share a special partnership, and the President looks forward to working closely with the Prime Minister to address common global challenges.     

Whitehouse.gov

photo by World Economic Forum

This was part of the statement released by the White House in anticipation of Gordon Brown’s impending visit to the US on 3 March.  The subtle changing of the language from relationship to partnership has some wondering if Obama is cooling on US support for the UK.

When Barack Obama moved into the White House, he returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British embassy that had been loaned to George W. Bush by William Blair.  Given that gift return, the PM is taking a slew of door prizes for Obama:

To go with the Resolute desk there’s a pencil holder made of timber from HMS Gannet, along with the framed commission of HMS Resolute which the First Sea Lord found kicking around the Admiralty.                                         Daily Mail

Foremost on the minds of the British though is the outcome of this first meeting.  The importance of the relationship … partnership or what-have-you cannot be overstated by some:

The Ministry of Defence has enshrined in formal doctrine that the UK will never again fight a major war without the US. 

Pursuing the special relationship is about embracing this fact, not fighting it; about making it work for Britain. For other countries, good relations with America are a means to an end; for the UK they are an end in themselves, a central plank of foreign policy.                                         Telegraph

Brown is expected to talk to Obama about the economy, Afghanistan and lay out his plan for the G20 conference coming in April, all the while trying to upgrade that special partnership into something more concrete.

A rally for Obama in India. Carol Mitchell / Flickr

 When I was traveling in India last month it became quite apparent that the U.S. is really no longer known as America, it’s ‘Obama-land’ now.

When asked hundreds of time where I was from, after replying “America” I almost always got the same response: “OBAMA!” Followed by an enthusiastic thumbs up. One of my favorite responses was, “Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Obama.” Nice to know Obama has already joined the ranks of some of the U.S.’s finest exports — pop music and basketball stars.

When I turned the question back on them, asking why they liked Obama I generally heard the same responses: “Good man,” “Nice man.” The one that stuck out in my mind most was, “He cares about all people.” By this I can only assume that many in India, and perhaps the world, think Obama is more on their side than our most recent past president. That Obama will be considerate of global leaders and the United Nations before making decisions.

“Obama seems predisposed to see every foreign policy problem in its global context,” said Joe Klein in a Feb. 19 TIME editorial, “The Quiet American: How the World Sees Obama.“

I’m happy the world as I have seen it on my travels has this view of our new leader. I will admit it is quite strange traveling in a world where people like your country. In 2006 — the year I last spent a significant amount of time abroad — I was confronted by graffiti that read “Bush is terrorista” in Italy and scribbles that equated the U.S. to Nazis.

And while I’m sure our country still has a long way to go before we have fully redeemed ourselves in the world’s eye, it’s nice to know we’re making steps — one speech about hope at a time.

A year ago I might have “been from Canada,” now I can (a little more proudly) say I am from America.

photo by laura padgett

In the weeks before this speech, the British papers were strangely quiet on

Obama, as eyes mostly turned inwards to the UK’s own huge economic problems. 

As popular sentiment in the UK seems to be turning more towards blaming the US for the global economic crisis, Obama’s star power seems to have  dimmed a little.

His speech before Congress though has the pundits all riled up again – especially with the news that Gordon Brown has finally secured a precious White House visit.

Jonathan Freedland writes in the Guardian “A sagging Brown image can only benefit from a shot of Obama botox”:

Where W damaged everyone who stood near him, Blair especially, Obama exercises the reverse polarity, sending waves of magical energy towards all who come near.

This optimism is slightly anachronistic given the amount of grumbling there is about Obama’s stimulus plan.  Gerald Warner at the Telegraph writes:

Months rather than years ago, nationalisation was the kind of notion that, in America, got its proponent tarred and feathered or incarcerated in an asylum.

The backwash from this American conversion to voodoo economics could badly damage Britain’s financial sector.

Of the speech itself, most commentators were more concerned with the amount of Blackberry traffic in the Capitol building than the president’s words. 

The most common reaction is one of relief that Obama has lightened his tone on the stimulus plan.  His brighter vision of the future, and it’s restorative affects on the British media reflects how muc influence his words have on this side of the pond.  And of course, the British media’s smug joy at beating Merkel and Sarkozy to the White House.

Perhaps it is because I work in a newsroom, but it seemed to me — even from Hong Kong — all ears were on U.S. president Barack Obama’s speech today. After much build-up for Obama’s State of the Nation address before a joint session of Congress, the speech may have been a let down to foreign listeners.

While Obama was quite reassuring to his American audience, focusing on domestic policy and overcoming the current financial crisis, it was noticeably absent of foreign policy details.

“Turning to a global stage, Obama declared a new era of US diplomatic engagement had begun,”  the Agence France-Presse reported. “He promised ‘swift and certain justice’ for captured terrorists, but was otherwise light on foreign policy specifics.” 

Since the inauguration world leaders have been coming out of the woodwork saying they would like to open dialogue with Obama. 

Earlier this month Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he welcomes talks with the U.S. “in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect.” This, after relations were ruptured 30  years ago, mind you. And while Obama has maintained he is open to talks with Iran, the world audience waits anxiously to see if and when this day will come.

“After much talk of engaging America’s adversaries, chief among them Iran, the Obama administration has made no move so far,” CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said in a Feb. 24 post, “World has questions for Obama.“

“If Iran is slowly unclenching its fist, will Obama offer an outstretched hand?” she asked.

While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Asia tour last week had potentially large implications for the financial crisis, climate change and North Korea, it seemed like a pre-game to the big show: her Middle East trip rumored to take place early next month. Her trip is said to include both Israel and the West Bank, which may finally give clues as to Obama’s policy agenda for Israel and Palestine. 

Sure, it’s only been, what, 37 days. But leaders from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Iran don’t seem like people I would want to keep waiting too long.

In the article, nearly 2000 words long, the venerable cleric spends about 1000 words detailing a long laundry list of America’s sins, going back to the Reagan administration. 

photo by Wa-J

On the Bush years, he definitely pulls no punches:

The Bush administration managed to rile people everywhere. Its bully-boy attitude sadly polarised our world.

But there’s no news here, and these opinions have been aired for the last 8 years.

To Obama, Tutu makes a suggestion.

It would be wonderful if, on behalf of the nation, Obama apologises to the world, and especially the Iraqis, for an invasion that I believe has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

This suggestion might sound great to a man of the cloth thinking everyone is out seeking absolution. Surely Obama’s policies are better served by continuing to strive to change the present and the future - not grovelling about the past.  If he does take Tutu’s advice though, maybe he should also apologize for nuking Japan, the war of 1812 and slavery.

The Archbishop also recommends to Obama that he should open channels of communication that were closed in the previous administration.   Pretty sure that was part of Obama’s platform during the election.

Tutu winds up his rambling letter by saying that the UK’s stature in the world has been damaged by its relationship to the US and that peace and positive change do not “come from the barrel of a gun but is achieved when cultural differences are respected and the fundamental rights of all are recognised and upheld.”

All good stuff, but not very enlightening.

photo by Rachel Peletz

I’m in Brussels but this story is about Kenya, told to me by a friend who’s working on her PhD in London.

My friend Rachel Peletz has traveled the world building water filters, talking up dry toilets and researching everything having to do with drinking water.  This January she was in Kisumu, Kenya, which happens to be quite close to where President Obama’s family is from.

Rachel was there to start research into HIV positive patients and the effects the quality of the water they drink has on their health.  Important stuff!  But all the locals couldn’t understand why she wasn’t making a pilgrimage out to visit Obama’s grandmother, Sarah Obama, like so many others have.  They just couldn’t understand why it didn’t fit into her schedule.

Rachel also said I could post a couple photos of Obamania.  Oh, the Obama love:

photo by Rachel Peletz

photo by Rachel Peletz