06 November 2008
What Barack Obama does next
The newspapers and airwaves, having speculated and then reported on the outcome of the US election, are now speculating about what it means. The biggest significance will be for American domestic policy and race relations, which are really outside the topic of this blog, but the way he might change American foreign and macroeconomic policies certainly is of interest.
Obama’s first and most notable policy position was his opposition to the war in Iraq – think about how things might have run differently if Hillary Clinton had voted against it rather than in favour – but over time he has moderated his demands for a timetable for withdrawal, and the American military presence will surely continue there for longer than he had originally envisaged.
The troops withdrawn from Iraq will be redeployed to Afghanistan, where he wants to step up the war, and he expects his European Nato allies to send more troops themselves. He was also willing during the campaign to discuss publicly the idea of US military action in Pakistan, military action which has already started under George W Bush and will presumably continue. Not the sudden spread of world peace that some of his supporters envisaged.
Turning to the global economy, Obama has flirted with protectionism during primaries in rustbelt states, at the same time as briefing the Canadian government that he did not really mean it. Where the truth will lie, we do not know. In fact, he does not know, either. Economic conditions are changing so dramatically and so quickly that hardly any positions have remained untouched.
The need for an new international system for regulating finance is generally agreed, and there will be a summit in Washington DC on 15 November to discuss it. Given that the Americans are among those who have suffered most from the current crisis, they ought to have a strong interest in changing the global rules. But it would be a big and substantial act for the American government to spread the influence around: again, rhetoric is one thing, actions are another.
Irwin Stelzer sums up the problem nicely in the Daily Telegraph:
“The notion that the new president, having waged a long and hard fight to gain control of the commanding heights of the American economy, will surrender that territory to some international body strikes me as daft.”
Isn’t that true of every step in international integration, where the national governments are the ones who have to face the biggest changes?
Obama’s first and most notable policy position was his opposition to the war in Iraq – think about how things might have run differently if Hillary Clinton had voted against it rather than in favour – but over time he has moderated his demands for a timetable for withdrawal, and the American military presence will surely continue there for longer than he had originally envisaged.
The troops withdrawn from Iraq will be redeployed to Afghanistan, where he wants to step up the war, and he expects his European Nato allies to send more troops themselves. He was also willing during the campaign to discuss publicly the idea of US military action in Pakistan, military action which has already started under George W Bush and will presumably continue. Not the sudden spread of world peace that some of his supporters envisaged.
Turning to the global economy, Obama has flirted with protectionism during primaries in rustbelt states, at the same time as briefing the Canadian government that he did not really mean it. Where the truth will lie, we do not know. In fact, he does not know, either. Economic conditions are changing so dramatically and so quickly that hardly any positions have remained untouched.
The need for an new international system for regulating finance is generally agreed, and there will be a summit in Washington DC on 15 November to discuss it. Given that the Americans are among those who have suffered most from the current crisis, they ought to have a strong interest in changing the global rules. But it would be a big and substantial act for the American government to spread the influence around: again, rhetoric is one thing, actions are another.
Irwin Stelzer sums up the problem nicely in the Daily Telegraph:
“The notion that the new president, having waged a long and hard fight to gain control of the commanding heights of the American economy, will surrender that territory to some international body strikes me as daft.”
Isn’t that true of every step in international integration, where the national governments are the ones who have to face the biggest changes?
Posted by Richard Laming at 13:51
Last month you said that if elected President you would "change the world". Sorry to disillusion you but the rest of us in the world outside of the USA doesn't want the world being changed, we want America to change.
In fact I can safely say that we've had enough of America's changes to the world, the illegal invasions undertook for solely economic motives, the death and destruction the USA has brought to millions of innocent civilians in your quest for world hegemony.
We've had enough of your concentration camps dotted throughout the world from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib where America suffered their greatest humiliation since 1776.
We've had enough of your blind support for the Apartheid regime in Israel with their policies of ethnic cleansing and in turning Gaza into the world's largest prison camp, slowly starving the occupants into submission or flight.
We've had enough of America disregarding International Laws when it suits you and then falling back them when it's to your advantage.
We've had enough of your threats against Iran on the basis of their non-existant nuclear weapons program or your violations of sovereignty in places such as Pakistan and Syria.
We've had enough of the USA being the sole opposition to United Nations resolutions intended to improve human rights.
In short Mr Obama get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and get used to the idea of buying your oil and gas on the open market instead occupying and threatening oil producers.
It's not as though you don't have enough problems at home, the Bush administration has been busy printing new money to pay your way in the world, your Treasury deficit is exceeding half a trillion dollars a year, your trade deficit is around $60 billion a month and that is partially because "made in the USA" is not a favourable trade mark to billions of people around the world.
We need action not words and change is certainly necessary, if you can change the USA you will truly change the world.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that: "When the United States catches cold, the rest of the world catches Pneumonia." The obvious meaning is that it matters little what the rest of the world thinks about how the US wants to change the world. What matters is that no matter what the US does, what it is that it does changes the rest of the world. So, having said that, it follows that if the US were to take you up on your proposals, you would very soon come whining to the US that the fixes it put into place were upsetting one or more other situations that don't appear related, but actually are.
The reality is, however, that whatever changes Obama puts into place, they will be changes that were approved by the US Congress - not the rest of the world - and the only reason Congress will approve them will because the American people - not the rest of the world - will approve them.
The question here becomes: Will Obama's changes that have been approved by both the American people and the Congress affect the rest of the world to its detriment?
The likely answer will probably be that it will be a safe bet that all - or most - of those changes will be aimed for domestic consumption, and it will be more profitable for the rest of the world to make those changes work for them. You will end up with less agita if you do.
Post a Comment
Back to the top