Avuncular American

Belgium's Lost Year: Politics Cancels Governance

(Image source: Brussels Export)

This has happened more than once in the past 12 months: Belgium decides to have an existential crisis when we happen to be away.  But existential political crises are the norm in a country where there are seven parliaments, three languages, and borders that include a wonderful geopolitical construct sometimes called the donut.*

The current kerfuffle is, again, essentially over the future outlines of the "linguistic frontier," both on maps and in how decentralization is pushed to its limits, before the "country" is no more than a shell for the all important regions and communities (Dutch speaking Flemish in Flanders, French speaking Walloons in the south, Germanophones along the eastern border, and a mix of all of the above, plus lots of internationals, in Brussels).  Things came to a head on July 15, the deadline for an "institutional reform" (Belgian for separatism) package.  See Le Soir cartoonist and author of "Dessine-moi la Belgique" Pierre Kroll for his take on the impact of the deadline on the daily life of Belgians.

The recent proffered resignation of Prime Minister Yves Leterme is simply the latest manifestation of the seemingly limitless capacity of Belgian politicians to conduct themselves as if the only thing elected officials should do is play politics.  Things like economic impact, national image, care for the national brand - those are for sissies.  Brinkmanship is the name of the game, and Leterme's resignation (as of this writing, not yet accepted by the head of state, King Albert II) is almost a footnote.  He's still in place, running a caretaker ("affaires courantes") government, and the name most talked about as a replacement in a future (coalition, as always) government is... Yves Leterme ("Leterme II").

Economic, business, and labor leaders throw up their hands in frustration: "A wasted year," sighed Vincent Reuter, head of the Wallonia employers association.  Essentially, the country has had a full year of holdover caretaker governments or short-lived successors since elections in summer 2007.  Months ago Belgian economists hazarded guesses on the cost of the crisis, which has only been compounded since.  The reaction of the politicians?  Hold the economy hostage to the outcome of a redistricting proposal dear to the hearts of Flemish politicians, and anathema to the French speakers.

The redistricting of the Brussels Hal Vilvoorde (BHV) constituency is a vital issue, even though trying to explain it to anyone living outside of Belgium results in understandable yawns.  Vital only because it risks splitting Dutch speakers and Francophones in the only area - the capital and its hinterland - where they live in close proximity.  Francophones (and many interested observers) fear that such a split would only be a precursor to further Flemish moves to bring an end to Belgium as a country.

Rather than splitting BHV, some thoughtful citizens are circulating a petition to unite Brussels and its hinterland, known by its historic name of Brabant (which exists, of course, in Flemish and Walloon versions).   They point out that the greater Brussels represents 2 million people, 1/3 of Belgium's GDP, and "more NGOs, lobbyists, embassies and consulates than Washington DC."  The Greens - probably the only Belgian political grouping that truly coordinates between its French and Dutch speaking sections - had earlier tabled proposals along the same lines, noting the natural synergies that regionalization would bring to the capital area, in terms of transportation and economic development, not to mention the main beneficial side effect of restoring some sense of shared destiny.

But there are other centrifugal forces at play, and not just on the Flemish side.  There has always been a fringe "rattachist" element wanting to find refuge with France, but of late at least one serious politician has come out with a "Belgique française" scenario in case the Flemish carry matters to their logical, separatist, conclusion.  Last month there was brief attention in the international press to the idea of a "Brussels Corridor," floated every few decades when Bruxellois get antsy about being cut off from their French speaking cousins down the road in Waterloo.

*So what about the donut?  It's actually worse than that.  According to Wikipedia (be sure to look at the map):

Baarle-Hertog is noted for its complicated borders with Baarle-Nassau in the Netherlands. In total it consists of 24 separate pieces of land. Apart from the main piece (called Zondereigen) located north of the Belgian town of Merksplas, there are twenty Belgian exclaves in the Netherlands and three other pieces on the Dutch-Belgian border. There are also seven Dutch exclaves within the Belgian exclaves. Six of them are located in the largest one and a seventh in the second-largest one. An eighth Dutch exclave lies in Zondereigen.

The border is so complicated that there are some houses that are divided between the two countries. There was a time when according to Dutch laws restaurants had to close earlier. For some restaurants on the border it meant that the clients simply had to change their tables to the Belgian side.

Let's hope that this doesn't become the template for Belgian cartographers.

Ireland, Europe: Why "Not?"

The end of Europe.¹
Clearly demonstrated the deep division that exists between the European elite and the citizens of Europe.²
Underneath all this there is a more profound question, which is about the future of Europe.³
"No" brings Europe to a kind of standstill.⁴
For me, the worst that could happen is if the citizens of the European Union or the leaders of the European Union enter into a zone of paralysis psychologically.⁵

Europe is still dealing with the Irish audacity of No, its unsurprising rejection of the Lisbon Treaty last Thursday.  Search the opinion columns of the European press, and you'll likely come up with sentiment similar to that expressed above.  Only the quotes I've provided date back to May 2005, when French voters rejected the EU constitution, the failed precursor to the Lisbon Treaty.  Providing the wisdom back then were:

¹Romano Prodi, former EU Commission President;
²President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic;
³Tony Blair, then British PM;
⁴Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian PM;
⁵Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief.

Some of these luminaries are still in the same jobs; others (Blair, Prodi, Dehaene) have gone on to other occupations.  The quotes are found in "French No Vote on European Constitution Rattles Continent," by Elaine Sciolino in the 31 May 2005 New York Times.

Perhaps the only unexpected aspect of Thursday's referendum was the relatively high turnout (53.1 %).  As an informed Irish reader of this blog put it, the high turnout revealed "the fallacy of the silent majority's favorable feelings towards the EU."  The same reader pointed me in the direction of pre-vote analysis by Irish writer David McWilliams, who pondered on the eve of the referendum ("Why 'Yes' and 'No' voters are in a class of their own")

Is the debate on the Lisbon Treaty coming down to class? Is the overwhelming bourgeois accent of the ‘Yes’ vote an election issue? In an era when many considered class politics to be more or less over, the social breakdown in the polls is fascinating. The trend that has emerged is that the middle-class is considerably more pro-European than the working class. According to the latest polls, the ‘Yes’ campaign is only ahead among the better off voters. So the posh are pro-Europe while the majority of the working class is planning a ‘No’ vote.

With the benefit of hindsight, now you can look at the Irish Times' great interactive map, showing the map of Ireland divided into No (flaming red) and Yes (bright green) and Undecided (gray for Dublin, which was still counting when the Times went to print).  Beyond the Pale (the way the English described Ireland outside of the Dublin area in the old days), poorer, rural Ireland appears to have given Lisbon a massive Red light.  But why?

Fintan O'Toole, assistant editor of the Irish Times writing in today's Guardian, speaks of the "scattergun negativity" of the naysayers defeating the "miserable" and uninspired Yes campaign ("Good for Ireland, Good for Europe").  His examples of voter sentiment would make you laugh, if you didn't want to cry:

• One anonymous voter was using the opportunity of a vote on the structural reform of the European Union to protest against the withdrawal by the newly privatised state airline Aer Lingus of its regular service between Shannon airport and Heathrow.
• Another voter "got a bit of information that, if I voted yes, my sons would be drafted into the army, so I voted no ... Our sons are too good-looking for the army."

Of course, we know how irrational voters can be once in the booth, and I fear what results such behavior will yield in next November's US presidential elections.  But that's what happens in democracies: people will do the damnedest things.

But once the "end of Europe as we know it" ill-informed reaction to this vote subsides, serious minds will approach the negotiating table with salvage in mind... just like Nicolas Sarkozy did last year when he helped unravel the mess that French voters helped cause when they rejected the EU constitution.  Getting Europe right is messy, time-consuming, frustrating, expensive, and more.  But, as Romano Prodi told Elaine Sciolino three years ago after the French reverse, "This is still better than a war of secession like the United States once had.  We must keep this perspective in mind. We don't have a treaty, but we also don't have wars."

Europe: All Eyes On Ireland

A copy of the Agreement was posted to every household in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and put to referendums the following May, which gave them substantial support by 74% and 94% respectively.
BBC on the Good Friday Agreement Referendum, 22 May 1998

I remember seeing one of those copies at my cousins' home, on the coffee table and well-thumbed.  They had read it before voting.

I’m voting ‘no,' though I don’t know an awful lot about it.
Brendan Fairbrother, retired Dubliner, quoted in today's New York Times by Sarah Lyall.

It looks like Mr. Fairbrother hasn't studied the 287-page Lisbon Treaty, but I can't be sure.  For those Irish voters (or readers) who want a quick summary, today's Irish Independent provides "The Treaty Made Simple."

If Brendan Fairbrother can't manage 287 pages of, as Sarah Lyall writes, "vintage bureacratese," I can't really blame him.  Nor is it the fault of the Irish that their constitution requiring Yes/No plebiscites puts them in, as today's Guardian cheerfully calls it, Europe's "awkward squad" along with Denmark and other sometime naysayers.  That's the problem with referendums: reducing complex 287-page treaties to a yes or no response can elicit the "wrong" response.  "Wrong" as in "no."  What then?  As the NYT's Lyall reports, "French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, spoke ominously on Tuesday of a “Franco-German” response to a “no” vote."  Sarkozy, who early in his presidency made a big show over his role in "simplifying" the treaty, has a personal investment in its ratification.

A "Franco-German response?"  France tried to help the Irish win their independence in 1798, "The Year of the French" (great historical novel, by the way, by Thomas Flanagan).  That didn't go well, and the Irish had to wait another century-plus to rid themselves of the colonial British.  Germans have been buying up lots of vacation homes in Ireland in recent years, and Germany's designs on a newly-independent neutral Ireland in the '30s and '40s worried the Anglo-American alliance, but things never went too far.  The Irish have to vote - it's not optional.

It's this kind of talk, Monsieur Sarkozy, that gets Ireland's Irish up, so to speak.  As the Irish Independent's cheat sheet puts it on the cherished notion of Irish neutrality:

Q:What does the treaty do on the military front?

A:Over the last five decades Ireland has built an internationally respected reputation for UN peacekeeping, thanks in part to neutrality.
Fears have been expressed over military expansion in Europe and demands on countries to massively increase their defence budgets.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, foreign, security and defence decisions must be made unanimously.
Ireland's neutrality is protected but there is an obligation to aid and assist, in accordance with the UN, a state which is the victim of armed aggression.
The type of aid and assistance that is required is not specified, but it must not affect security and defence policies of states, including Ireland's neutrality.
Also, states are obliged to help each other after a terrorist attack, natural or man-made disaster.

Such step-by-step gingerly handling of the Neutrality Question may strike non-Irish readers as overly cautious in the post Cold War present.  Not so.  Neutrality, and supposed threats to it, is sacred to the Irish.  I recall that when the US Mission to NATO (of which I was then a part) organized a seminar in a Dublin suburb in the late '90s, there was a mini-hullabaloo over this "military alliance" coming to neutral Ireland.  That the conference was on NATO's expansion to the East (and not west to Ireland) mattered little.  It was their very presence on neutral soil that counted.

Referendums, like elections, are sometimes decided on issues that have nothing to do with the question at hand.  Are voters unhappy (or happy?) with the ruling coalition this month?  Has the president (or prime minister, or chancellor) been unpopular of late?  Do people want to get their revenge by opposing whatever the government is proposing?  How's the weather on referendum day?  The Guardian:

Europe's future, being decided today, may hinge on such happenstance as the Irish weather. An unlovely day could keep people at home. A low turnout will hurt the pro-European vote.

Today's weather forecast for Ireland is "intermittent clouds."  Will attitudes toward the European benefactor - the hand that helps feed the Celtic Tiger - be sunny today?

(Image Source: Traditional Lace Makers of Ireland)

Getting To Know Barack Obama

He wasn't physically there last night, but Barack Obama was very ably "introduced" to the members of Democrats Abroad Belgium (DAB) by one of our number, John-Paul Bernbach, who joined the Obama bandwagon as soon as the Illinois Senator announced his bid for the White House.  The room was filled by those of us who took a bit more time to rally to the cause, and JP's presentation, I hope, will also have provided lingering Clinton supporters in the room ample reason to justify their jumping on board.

Though people availed themselves of the good Belgian beer at the hotel bar, it wasn't a "victory party," and there was no gloating or untoward triumphalism evident over the events of last week.  DAB Chairwoman Faustina Mercado-Sandoval set the tone with a very appropriate Hillary Clinton quote from last Saturday's concession speech:

So I want to say to my supporters: When you hear people saying or think to yourself, If only, or, What if, I say, please, don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.  Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next president.

With that conciliatory admonition from Senator Clinton, we Democrats in Belgium set to learning more about our candidate.  And JP Bernbach did not disappoint.

It reminded me of the Boy Scout motto: "Barack Obama is: Pragmatic, Non-Ideological, an Organizer, a Real-Politic politician, etc."  JP did well to remind us of these aspects of our candidate, since there's a danger in his being (rightfully) renowned solely for his oratory.  There's a lot of senatorial substance behind the way with words, as we heard last night.  And years of experience in politics, at local, state, and now Federal levels.

Naturally for a group of expatriated Americans, the audience was best informed on foreign policy issues (interestingly, at the very time we were discussing international issues in Brussels, back in the US both Democratic and Republican candidates were concentrating on economic themes, which may have more resonance with voters).  There was concern over the Bush Administration's apparent desire to use "Status of Forces Agreement" negotiations in Iraq to form a secret "strategic alliance" that would complicate withdrawal plans for an Obama Administration.  It was no surprise that Americans in Brussels, home to NATO and the EU, would be more aware than many Americans of national security issues and relations with our European allies.  Several work with US military personnel, and pointed out that the military vote is not a shoo-in for McCain.  As Mark Benjamin noted in Salon a couple of months ago, at the height of the "3:00 AM" excitement:

Clinton has now turned the debate about commander-in-chief readiness into a contest of résumés. And the conventional wisdom is that John McCain -- ex-fighter pilot, former POW and war hero -- wins.  But that's not necessarily the case, say senior military officials and political analysts. In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.

As long as Obama's calm temperament does not come across as aloofness, this may be an important ace up his sleeve in matters military and beyond.

Given the rampant speculation last week about Vice Presidential possibilities, we might have expected more Obama-Clinton ticket promoters in yesterday's crowd.  Not really.  The consensus seemed to be that a Clinton VP slot would load down the Obama campaign with problematic baggage, especially on the "Whither Bill?" question.  There was more interest in a potential Clinton Supreme Court future (for life...) especially since, as JP pointed out, she has a long way to go in the Senate before amassing sufficient seniority for leadership positions.

I think we were very well served to have been treated to a "Getting To Know" evening, scheduled weeks before Barack Obama in fact became the uncontested Democratic candidate.  JP's encyclopedic knowledge of Obama mirrors that of longtime Obama friend Cass R. Sunstein, whose article in the London Independent a few months back is the best one-page summary of the man who could be President:

The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his attention to detail. In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the increasingly cult-like atmosphere that surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the eloquent plea for "change" – whether the soaring phrases might disguise a kind of emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.  From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant administration of his own campaign provides helpful evidence here.

JP Bernbach has not had the benefit of Sunstein's years of proximity to Obama, but I think that his reading of the man is as accurate.  In all, it was a very nice follow up to last week's cessation-of-hostilities in the Democratic camp, and a great kickoff for the general election campaign to come.  

Democrats: Suspend Hostilities, Form Shadow Government

The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, National Building Museum, Saturday 7 June 2008 (text here)

Suspend, defined, thanks to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1: to debar temporarily especially from a privilege, office, or function
2 a: to cause to stop temporarily
2 b: to set aside or make temporarily inoperative
3: to defer to a later time on specified conditions
4: to hold in an undetermined or undecided state awaiting further information

I understand that the Clinton campaign defines "suspend" in a technical, convention-related sense, so that Senator Clinton's delegates can be recognized as such, akin to a similar John Edwards formulation.  I am willing to suspend my judgment on the temporary, undecided, deferred, and undetermined connotations of her one use of suspend, and take her at her word (repeated at least 8 times in yesterday's speech), that she will "do all she can to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States."  Trust, but verify.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, what next?  Barack Obama has deftly chosen the deliberative, "form a committee" path to ponder the Vice Presidential question, so maybe we can leave Caroline Kennedy and colleagues alone, and focus on some other matters.  Given Hillary Clinton's stirring-but-suspended speech yesterday, I think discussion of her as a potential VP running mate would best be "deferred to a later time on specified conditions," to borrow a Websterism.

But November 2008 is not just a Presidential election, where Americans get to choose between two pairs of candidates.  A true Senate majority (preferably veto-proof, should, heaven forbid, John McCain win in the Electoral College) is up for grabs, and it never hurts to improve on your majority in the House.  There will be governorships and state assemblies.  All these races will hopefully ride on Obama's coattails.

So, while the Kennedy et al VP committee is performing its due diligence, the Obama campaign might consider who might be invited to form an American version of what is done so effectively in other democracies, especially of the parliamentary type: a shadow cabinet.

A shadow cabinet, American-style, would not necessarily be a mirror image of, say, the UK's venerable institution, with designated ministers (or "Secretaries" in the American context) for each government department or agency.  But Barack Obama has attracted a number of extremely competent and bright Americans.  So, it should be added, has Hillary Clinton.  These people, many of whom have served in prior Democratic administrations, might be called upon at appropriate moments.  Like when the Bush Administration flubs up another time on energy policy, and goes begging to the Saudis for more oil and comes home humiliated.  Or when the administration belies its pro-military rhetoric and opposes help for soldiers and veterans.  Barack Obama, though he does it very well, need not be the only Democrat who addresses issues.  The important thing is getting the message right, and coordinating it so that multiplicity of voices does not mean cacophony.

Hillary Clinton, who has shown herself extremely persuasive in the campaign, can be given a voice - should be given a voice.  Whatever the outcome of Obama-Clinton private deliberations, their public voice can be in harmony.  Welcome to the Obama Campaign, Senator Clinton.

What the World Wants: An Obama Administration

Well, at least that's what Brussels' Radio Al Manar wants.  But it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the American Presidential election - especially the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama - has stirred enormous overseas interest in the United States.  And, for once in the last seven and a half years, interest in a positive sense.  And it's not just the good people at Radio Al Manar.  Over the past several months of the primaries, it has been clear that a potential Obama presidency has caught the imaginations of right and left, in Europe and beyond.

Yesterday yours truly was the guest of Radio Al Manar, a private FM station with studios in the francophone Belgian cities of Brussels, Liege, and Charleroi.  Al Manar ("The Lighthouse," a reference to Alexandria's Pharos, one of the ancient Wonders of the World) broadcasts in French and in Arabic to a largely Moroccan-origin audience (both among the large Moroccan community in Belgium and back home via live audio streaming).  The venue was to have been a "debate" between a representative of Democrats Abroad Belgium (me) and someone from the Republicans; repeated efforts by station director Ahmed Bouda were met by frustration, though they still hope to get a francophone Republican to show up for a future show.  You have to wonder if the Republicans ever got any further than a Google search, where the keyword "al manar" will result in 697,000 hits, Number One of which is Al Manar TV in Lebanon, the Hizbullah station.  Definitely not our hosts of yesterday: Radio Al Manar in Brussels is located in the same building as the offices of Israel's El Al Airlines, and among their guests have been a host of Belgian government officials, an ecumenical group of religious leaders including Belgian rabbis, and a group of Israeli "refusenik" soldiers who object to service in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Anyway, having the mike to myself wasn't all that bad (Al Manar's site should have an MP3 link of the interview up in a few days).  Michel, the Congolese-Belgian interviewer, was extremely well-prepared, with a list of questions for me and the non-existent (but potential show up) Republican.  I took a pass on at least one question: the trial of Tarek Aziz, Saddam's former foreign minister ("an issue for Iraqi justice").  And in retrospect I wish I had been more proactive in delineating the differences between Democratic and Republican approaches to economic and social issues, especially health care.

Michel and the Al Manar audience were particularly interested in the promise shown by the Obama candidacy in the context of American society.  The son of an African immigrant running for President of the United States... very resonant to an audience whose members have also embraced their new Belgian home, and have begun to fill a number of elective offices.  The new openness of the American electorate to candidates like Obama and Clinton speaks volumes to an audience that itself represents the new diversity in European societies.

But the main focus of Al Manar, again reflecting the interests of its audience, was American foreign policy.  Given the spike in attention to Obama's June 4 speech in front of AIPAC (full text here), and especially his statement "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," I fully expected an onslaught of questions on his intentions vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestine peace process.  No, what was a more burning issue was America's moral standing in the world.  Continuing to preach to others about human rights, when Guantanamo and prison ships dominate the news.  Luckily, I had another Obama quote to deploy: "I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus."

Given the timing - the eve of Senator Clinton's much-anticipated Saturday concession/congratulatory speech - my interviewers (technician Karim couldn't help asking questions during commercial or musical breaks; finally Michel let him ask one on-air) tried to draw me into the speculation fun.  Will his VP choice be Hillary Clinton?  How about John Edwards?  How about the significance of Caroline Kennedy helping to head the VP search committee?  My questioners were very well informed, and I mostly just rambled on about party unity.  In truth, I was extremely relieved that the interview had been rescheduled for June 6, since a week earlier I would have been forced to fall back on safe-but-boring talking points like "Democrats Abroad is not positioned to encourage or even discuss one candidate or another dropping out of the race..."

Fast forward to June 6, and I was able to move on, just as Hillary Clinton had done in a letter to her supporters: "On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy."  The DNC website had also adapted to the new reality.  Big picture of a smiling Obama, caption inviting readers to "Join Us and Help Elect Barack Obama," with a nice "Thank You, Hillary" picture just below.  Yes, Thank You, Hillary, for making my job easier - I was worried about seeming to be the last person on earth who didn't recognize the reality of the Democratic Candidate, Senator Barack Obama.

Ahmed, Michel, and Karim are rooting for him (Ahmed even wanted to send in a contribution, though I gently reminded him of the Obama website donation restrictions: "I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident").  They are rooting for him, and so is the rest of the world.  Now we Democrats just have to get our act together and convince Americans of the merits of a President Obama.

Cheat & Retreat: My Personal Clinton Red Line

While, admittedly, I am a white, fifty-something, male, expatriated American...
... I am most definitely not:

• a misogynist;
• a racist;
• a religious sectarian;
• an ageist (that would be self-defeating);
• a snob (though I do like to use big words).

That said, I want to make the following points about Senator Hillary Clinton:

• When she shed a tear in New Hampshire, I thought it may have been a normal human emotion, though it could have been a calculated move at a crucial moment.
• Then there was the innuendo that only candidate Clinton (well, maybe McCain too) could take care of the little sleeping children at 3:00 AM when foreign-looking men came to call.
• I gave her the benefit of the doubt, given her long record favoring civil rights, when she equated white, working class, and hard working with support for her, as opposed to, what?  “Black welfare recipients for Obama?”
• But I draw the line at her Huckabee-like juxtaposition of the words “Kennedy,” “convention,” and “assassination,” as if there weren’t millions of Americans who fervently pray lest a similar fate befall their chosen candidate.

Each one of these electioneering “eruptions” (a throwback to an earlier Clinton era) has been followed by an apology or a hurried explanation of the "context," whether from Senator Clinton herself or from an acolyte.  Such is the case with yesterday’s assassination reference.

But then we also get a flurry of editorials complaining – as Hillary Clinton was doing yesterday when she let the Kennedy (Obama?) assassination allusion rip (not slip: there’s nothing chance about Mrs. Clinton’s public utterances) – about all the calls for her to cease and desist from the electoral race.  And equating them with misogyny.  Make no mistake: there is misogyny out there, and I loathe it as much as I despise racist attacks on Barack Obama.  But to call for an end to this destructive spiral is not in any way misogyny.  I don't want her reputation to be further tarnished by Senator Clinton's misguided verbal assaults on her fellow Senator.

So, taking into account what I am not (see paragraph 1), I hereby join the ranks of those saying Basta.  That’s enough, Senator Clinton.  Nothing more to be gained – nothing – from your continued nasty-nice, nice-nasty campaigning.  Only heartache and consternation in the Democratic camp, joy and relief in the Republican ranks. 

Please declare a victory of whatever sort you wish – breaking glass ceilings as the first woman presidential candidate, inspiring generations of young Democrats to register to vote, raising consciousness on key platform issues like health care – you name it.  But please leave, and end this very discernible “pattern” of cheat & retreat, slime & “Sorry!”  So that you leave an honorable legacy, before it’s too late.

Bridges to the Democratic Convention

(Photo source: © Tamara Rafkin 2008)

This post is simply a vehicle to display a couple of nice pictures taken the other day by some fellow Obama supporters in Belgium.  Part of the "Bridges for Obama" effort, people in Brussels and the leafy suburb of Tervuren gathered on a glorious Wednesday evening on a couple of bridges.  They joined people in cities across the world, doing the same thing.  All for the purpose of showing support for their choice for President.

The futuristic walkway on the left is at the Marolles Elevator in the center of Brussels, linking the more recent "Upper City" to the historic "Marolles" district.  Below right, a few suburbanite expats posed in front of the Africa Museum, a repository of everything imaginable from the days of the Belgian Congo and "Ruanda-Urundi."

The outing was fun, and garnered some free local publicity.

I will try to abstain from editorial comment and inference about the symbolism of past and future, of bridges to the 21st century (oops, that's a Clintonian phrase), etc.  Sorry, but I'm opinionated.  That's why I blog!

Suffice it to say that this very picturesque initiative comes from Obama supporter Meredith Wheeler in rural France, and that the pictures will be part of a collage shown at the Democratic Convention.  The Convention at which - at least those of us in the photos hope - Senator Barack Obama will be officially consecrated as the nominee of the party.

Unless something else happens, that is.  No, I will end on a positive(ly naive?) note: even the Democratic Party cannot allow internecine warfare to scupper all these good people's hopes.  The next weeks will be full of "nuclear option" talk, and suggestions of deals, but if the millions of people who have taken the trouble to register, vote, or caucus are able to focus on the big picture - who do you want in November, Senator Bomb Iran or our guy? - then all of the angst will have been just that.

We Are Not Appeased

"Never ask publicly for a favor unless you know it will be granted"

Picking up where I left off yesterday on the matter of appeasement, now that Saudi Arabia has sent President Bush packing without his hoped-for oil production increase, I defer to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, not known for its anti-Bush sentiments.  In "Beseeching the Saudis," the WSJ lets the administration have it:

A cardinal rule of presidential diplomacy is never to ask publicly for favors unless you know in advance they will be granted. The same request by Mr. Bush had already been rebuffed by the Saudis during his visit to Riyadh in January. This time around, the Saudi response was particularly blunt and condescending: "If you want more oil, you need to buy it," said Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister.

Anyone who watched the video clip of the royal audience would have seen a jocular, squirming Bush in the presence of a wooden, unamused King Abdullah.  If ever there was a filmed testament to the sunset of a failed administration, this one will vie with "Mission Accomplished."

The WSJ suggests that the White House fire whoever put Bush up to "this second presidential humiliation" at the hands of his Saudi buddies.  Neither the newspaper nor the President need look very far: Vice President Cheney, whose ties with the oil industry rival the President's own oil credentials, was there on a similar mission in March (see the International Herald Tribune "Bush Hopes Cheney's Mideast Visit Will Rein In Oil Prices").  Oops.

We are reminded by the WSJ of another particularly galling aspect of the Saudi rebuff:

The Administration is defending its decision to sell the House of Saud billions of dollars in advanced weapons, over the increasingly hectic objections of New York Senator Chuck Schumer. The Administration is also proposing to help the Saudis develop civilian nuclear reactors to provide for their energy needs. That may help the Kingdom export more oil by easing its domestic requirements. But we await the explanation for why the world needs another politically unstable Islamic theocracy in possession of radioactive fuel rods.

Need anyone remind the lame ducks on Pennsylvania Avenue that investing billions in arms for unpopular, unstable Gulf monarchies has a way of backfiring on the US?  And, given the "Want more oil? Buy it" response of the Saudis, what have these risky arms deals been "buying" for the US?  Good will?  Try again.

Talking to rivals: squarely in the tradition of American diplomacy

Luckily, there is another type of foreign policy realism being propounded by Senator Barack Obama, whose call for engagement with Cuban, Iranian, or Palestinian leaders has been the target of the "appeasement" slur.  In the wake of the much-criticized Bush remarks, brandishing partisan internal American politics in front of a foreign audience, Senator Obama noted that his approach has been in the mainstream of "the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently."  "Recently" would be post-January 2001.

When John McCain taunts his Democratic rival about a supposed "endorsement" from Hamas, he is treading on very thin ice.   There's a parallel to the 2004 argument over Osama Bin Laden's supposed preference for Kerry vs. Bush.  In this prophetic piece in London's The Observer of February 15, 2004, Henry Porter notes:

The rather chilling thing is to consider how bin Laden and his al-Qaeda lieutenants view the election. Would they rather have a President Kerry or Edwards, who would make overtures to Islam, embrace the UN and heed world opinion, or would they prefer four more years of a man who had done so much to isolate America from the rest of the world?

Osama needs George, and to a degree George needs the mystical fear that Osama evokes. And it is this fear that will see this second-rate, isolationist, spendthrift President re-elected to the White House.

Fast forward to 2008.  If you were Iranian President Ahmadinajad and you wanted to gain domestic popularity and rally your beleaguered citizenry against a foreign foe, would you prefer a conciliatory Barack Obama whose overtures might threaten opening up your regime to outside influence, or a fire breathing John McCain, singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran...?  I don't really care who Bin Laden or Ahmadinajad want for president - but I really don't want Americans falling for fear mongering and electing presidents who are their enemies' dreams come true.

When Is It Appeasement?

Is it appeasement (dictionary definition: “1. to bring to a state of calm; pacify: to appease an angry king”) when President George W. Bush flies from Israel to Riyadh to beg King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (source of 79 % of 9/11 kamikazes) to lower the price of his crude oil?

2. “To satisfy; relieve: The fruit appeased his hunger.”  Does sniping at Senator Barack Obama (and then denying that he targeted the Democratic front runner) from the Israeli Knesset satisfy the Republican appetite for Swift-Boating?  Nope, it just whets it – this is an opening salvo in the next phase of a stomach-churning American election campaign.

3. “To yield to the demands of in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of one’s principles.”  It’s this last definition (courtesy of Random House Webster’s College Dictionary) that Bush presumably had in mind when he warned against “the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

But the root of appeasement is peace, and Neville Chamberlain’s efforts to stave off World War II only gave the word a negative connotation because he failed.  Luckily, this signal failure didn’t give peacemaking a bad name forever, or else we wouldn’t have the Middle East Peace Process as an eternal source of Presidential ambition.

The notion that an American president – a President Obama, for example – would be practicing appeasement if he had an open dialogue with leaders like Iran’s Ahmadinajad and the (elected, as Senator McCain reminds us below) Hamas government in Gaza is very selective, and almost entirely a function of American politics.  President Bush’s favored Palestinian interlocutor, PA President Abbas, hails from the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was for years anathema as a terrorist organization.

Luckily, some elements in the US government have long thought it politic to open up discreet channels of communication.  I once worked for a Republican political appointee ambassador who, in a previous life as a Senate staffer, was a regular interlocutor with Yasir Arafat’s Fatah and the PLO when us diplomats couldn’t even be in the same room as a Palestinian official.  Those back channel contacts eventually led to Oslo and Camp David, and to the modicum of Palestinian self-rule that is allowed to exist.

Bush has been castigated for criticizing (albeit not by name, but he’s kidding no one) the Democratic presumptive candidate while traveling abroad.  From the podium of Israel’s parliament, no less.  But Israel, more than most countries, can claim a “special interest” in the outcome of the US presidential elections.  Often dubbed “the 51st state,” many Israelis hold dual Israeli-US citizenship, and the settlements in the West Bank are especially popular with transplanted American Jewish emigrants.  Bush probably felt sufficiently at home to inject a bit of partisan politics into his address.

But after blasting Obama for supposed “appeasement,” Bush then hops on a plane for Saudi Arabia, where appeasement is happenin’ big time.  You don’t have to be a Michael Moore to note that US consumers help appease Saudi Arabia every day by paying sky-high prices for its oil.  And that of all people, George W. Bush, who owed his pre-presidential oil wealth to his family’s Gulf sheikhdom connections, should now lecture Obama about kowtowing (Webster’s: “1.  To act in an obsequious manner; show servile deference”) to foreign leaders.

And what of Senator John McCain, that “clean” campaigner who touched off the latest firestorm by equating Senator Obama’s openness to discussions with pariah states and organizations with weakness against terrorism?  Today’s Washington Post carries a stinging op-ed by former Clinton Administration official James P. Rubin, who assails McCain’s “guilt by association” attack as hypocrisy of the worst sort.  He recalls a Sky News TV interview with McCain two years ago, after Hamas won freely-contested Palestinian elections, when he asked The Maverick "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"  McCain then:

They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy.  Fatah was not giving them that.

Apparently it wasn’t appeasement then, when the Straight Talk Express was rolling.  Huffington Post has a nice video of the Rubin-McCain interview.  Now, if Michael Moore just had a video of Bush and Abdullah...

(Photo source: "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Craig Unger)