Obama isolating America from its Allies

[vector7]

Rift With Germany Is Next on Diplomatic Agenda
By NICHOLAS KULISH

DRESDEN, Germany — After mending fences with the Muslim world in CairoPresident Obama might want to keep his diplomatic tools handy for his stopover here, to repair his increasingly strained relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

A rift has quietly opened up between Germany and the United States, marked by official statements of harmony and private grumbling. It is not an outright crisis in relations, but there are underlying tensions and disagreements on matters ranging from the global economic crisis to the future of inmates held at Guantánamo Bay.

On a more basic level, there is a sense that the Obama administration is ignoring the needs and counsel of longtime allies. Divided Germany was once at the center not only of the cold war, but of American foreign policy as well, which is no longer the case. Yet the United States can ill afford to alienate Europe’s largest economy and its most important intermediary in the strained relationship with Russia. “They’re not angry, they’re not anti-Obama or anti-American,” said John C. Kornblum, a former United States ambassador to Germany and now a business adviser in Berlin. “But they’re confused by the wave of criticism which has been sent at them by the administration and people close to the administration.

“It’s not that they don’t like him,” he said. “They just feel like things aren’t working, like the levers of government are not being engaged to make issues run smoothly.”

Mr. Obama arrived in Dresden, in the former East Germany, on Thursday night for a visit that will also take him to Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp, and the American military hospital in Landstuhl. The German news media have questioned why Mr. Obama was not going to Berlin, suggesting the omission might have been intended as a snub to Mrs. Merkel. Her advisers say it is no such thing and instead praise Mr. Obama’s interest in the former East Germany, where Mrs. Merkel grew up.

While Mr. Obama enjoys tremendous personal popularity among the German people, relations with Mrs. Merkel have been bumpy from the beginning. In Germany much symbolic weight is attached to Mrs. Merkel’s decision not to travel to Washington to meet with Mr. Obama in March, but to talk by video conference instead.

But signs of discord were evident even last summer, when Mrs. Merkel rejected Mr. Obama’s request during the presidential campaign to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate, saying it was not an appropriate location for a candidate’s address. Mr. Obama drew more than 200,000 people to hear his speech at a nearby monument.

The president’s high standing with the German public adds to the strain in his relationship with Mrs. Merkel, local analysts say. “Obama is so popular with the German people that you have a lot of comments like, ‘Why don’t we have a German Obama?’ ” said Dietmar Herz, director of the Erfurt School of Public Policy. “Angela Merkel is seen as the exact opposite of a charismatic leader like Obama, and that is difficult to accept.”

There is a sense in Germany, that the smooth Mr. Obama and the flashy President Nicolas Sarkozy of France have a better connection with each other than either does with the serious-minded Mrs. Merkel. And Mr. Sarkozy’s decision to reintegrate France into the command structure of NATO, though it had little direct impact on the war in Afghanistan, stood in stark contrast to Germany’s steadfast refusal to send troops to fight in the more violent south of the country.

At the same time, Mr. Obama’s popularity with the left-wing Social Democrats, rivals to Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union in parliamentary elections in September, also helps amplify his and Mrs. Merkel’s differences. The Social Democrats, who are the junior party in an unhappy coalition under Mrs. Merkel, have embraced Mr. Obama as a natural ally.

“The Christian Democrats were closer to the Bush administration than they admitted,” Mr. Herz said. “It was very difficult for conservatives like the chancellor to admit that she was close to a lot of his policies.”

Relations were already frosty as the economic crisis deepened and the German government and Obama administration took sharply differing views on how far to push stimulus spending. Mrs. Merkel believed that the Americans were underestimating the threat of inflation. But American policy makers said she did not understand the depth and the significance of the crisis.

In the early stages of the Obama presidency, officials in the Merkel government were dismayed by the scarcity of staff in midlevel positions at the Treasury Department. And Germans remain surprised that an ambassador to their country has not been named more than four months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration. There is a sense that, with his focus split between domestic concerns and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new president is taking his staunchest European allies for granted.

“There is definitely this disappointment in Europe, complaining that there’s nobody home,” said Stephen Flanagan, senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

German government officials were outraged that a low-ranking American official was sent for the negotiations to find a way to keep the traditional automaker Opel going despite the bankruptcy of its parent company, General Motors, in the United States. The potential failure of an important industrial employer before parliamentary elections is no laughing matter for German politicians, including Mrs. Merkel. Still, Karsten D. Voigt, who coordinates German-American relations in the German Foreign Ministry, disputed the contention that relations between the allies were under any strain, as did Merkel advisers, who rightly point out that this is Mr. Obama’s third visit to Germany in less than a year.

“This takes time in the U.S.,” Mr. Voigt said. “Transition is a long process. It’s always a frustrating experience.”

[vector7]

From The Times
June 5, 2009
Barack and Michelle Obama decline dinner with the Sarkozys

Charles Bremner in Paris

The Obamas turn up in Paris this evening, but have declined a dinner invitation from the couple next door: the Sarkozys.

President Obama’s reluctance to spend more than minimum time with the French leader on his visit for the D-Day anniversary has come as an embarrassment to the Elysée Palace.

America’s First Family will not be dining with President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, even though they are staying at the residence of the US Ambassador, yards from the Elysée apartments where the Sarkozys spend their weekends.

Mr Sarkozy’s staff were trying yesterday to arrange another private moment between the couples. Mr Obama is due to fly back to Washington tomorrow night or on Sunday.

Mr Sarkozy’s dream date would be dinner somewhere spectacular such as the Jules Verne, an Alain Ducasse restaurant on the Eiffel Tower. The Obamas were reported on French celebrity websites to be planning a meal there.

A glamorous joint outing might be compared with the ones that President de Gaulle undertook with John and Jackie Kennedy in 1961. On that trip, Mrs Kennedy was such a hit that JFK presented himself as “the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris”.

Failure to socialise with the Obamas will add to mockery that has greeted Mr Sarkozy’s attempts to stage the 65th anniversary of D-Day as a “Barack and Sarko show”. The media and Opposition have mocked Mr Sarkozy over Mr Obama’s coolness towards him, which is only partly due to his handling of the Normandy commemoration.

Mr Sarkozy has been pilloried in France for his failure to invite the Queen to the events. “The palace is fearing a snub,” Le Parisien newspaper said yesterday after the news emerged of the Obamas’ plans to keep themselves to themselves.

Yesterday the popular comedian Nicolas Canteloup did an impression of Mr Sarkozy worrying that he had “only two days to become tall, handsome and elegant”. The French leader is 5½ inches shorter than Michelle Obama.

The French were also piqued after the White House said that it was working on an invitation to Normandy for the Royal Family. Face was saved when the Prince of Wales agreed to attend with Gordon Brown. “Sarkozy has pulled off a double hit: insulting Queen Elizabeth and exasperating Obama,” the weekly Canard Enchaîné said on Wednesday.

French worries about being snubbed were matched in Germany, where media and politicians are convinced that the brevity of Mr Obama’s trip there and a decision to avoid Berlin demonstrated his disapproval of Angela Merkel, the Chancellor. Mr Obama was due in Germany last night for a visit to Dresden and the Buchenwald death camp.

Mr Obama’s irritation with his French counterpart began when Mr Sarkozy tried to grab the limelight at the G20 summit in London in April and talked condescendingly of the US President in private. Mr Sarkozy told colleagues that he found Mr Obama to be inexperienced and unbriefed, especially on climate change. Mr Obama hit back last month, telling a visiting French minister: “Please tell Nicolas that I shall do my homework, and in two months I’ll know all about climate change.”

The leaders will have lunch in Caen tomorrow while their wives meet near by. They will then all attend the ceremony at the US cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, above Omaha Beach.

Philippe Duron, the Mayor of Caen, has minted a slogan for his town in honour of Mr Obama: “Yes we Caen!”

[Beetle]

If I was Sarkozy, I would consider myself lucky.

[vector7]

Wow,

France and Israel have become the new leader of the free world!!!

Sarkozy. Mocks Obama at UN Security Council: Hello, Big Media?

by Maura Flynn

One of my favorite features of the Newseum in Washington, DC is the daily display of newspaper front pages from around the world. Today, Canada’s National Post was a standout with Alex Spillius’ coverage of a clash between Presidents Obama and Sarkozy.

(See Site for embedded newspaper front page) or Obama vs Sarkozy pdf –

For reasons yet to be determined, the National Post appears to have de-linked their own front page story on their website. Mr. Spillius reported a similar (albeit watered-down) version in the UK’s Telegraph.

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were, well, remarkable:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

No American newspapers seem to have featured Sarkozy’s justifiably derisive remarks about Obama’s naivete regarding the realities of nuclear technology.

Still we can be grateful for the freedom of the press, as embodied and celebrated by the Newseum — including the chilling reconstruction of segments of the Berlin Wall.

These serve as a reminder that however oppressive or myopic the powers-that-be, news cannot be stifled.

[Beetle]

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”


I agree, we should not stop making nuclear bombs until everybody has gotten rid of their nukes. That is what he is saying, right?

[vector7]

Superpower without a partner

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Comments

Superpower without a partner
* Topic A: Foreign policy specialists assess Obama's trip to Asia
* A marriage made in China



Like comets hurtling at one another from opposite points in outer space, two different phenomena in different parts of the world soared into public awareness last week. Separately, they might not have had cosmic importance. Put together, however, they could prove an interesting harbinger of things to come.

In China, President Obama met his counterpart, President Hu Jintao. He also met the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao. The former got more attention, but the latter was more interesting: According to Xinhua, the Chinese news agency, Wen told Obama that "China disagrees to the suggestion of a 'Group of Two.' " China is "still a developing country,"

Wen said, and "we must always keep sober-minded about it." China is delighted to continue its economic relationship with the United States, but China "pursues the independent foreign policy of peace and will not align with any country or country blocs."

Translation: China will not cooperate in placing sanctions on Iran; China will not hinder North Korea's nuclear missile program; and China will not help solve the problems of Afghanistan, the Middle East or anywhere else. China has decided that, in short, it will not become America's full partner in foreign policy.

At approximately the same time, the leaders of Europe were locked in proverbial smoke-filled rooms (nowadays empty of smoke) arguing over who should be granted the job of "president" of the European Union and who should become Europe's new "high representative," or foreign minister. These talks represented the culmination of a decade's worth of diplomacy, debate and national referendums, all designed to produce a more united European foreign policy and to give Europe a single phone number, so that Obama can call when he wants to chat. The result: The president of Europe will be Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, a politician unknown outside his own country. The foreign minister of Europe will be Britain's Catherine Ashton, a bureaucrat unknown even inside her own country. Candidates of far greater experience and influence -- including the former British prime minister Tony Blair and the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt -- were rejected, apparently for fear they would have more experience and influence than the powers that be. Germany's Der Spiegel heralded this news with the headline "Europe Chooses Nobodies."

Translation: Europe might have a new phone number, but when Obama calls, the person on the other end of the line will still be unable to act. "Europe" will not be a unified entity capable of coordinating a unified policy in Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, the Middle East or anywhere else anytime soon. Europe cannot, in short, become America's full partner in foreign policy.

And thus we are left with a curious situation: America no longer wants to be the sole superpower. The American president no longer wants to be the leader of a sole superpower. Nobody else wants America to be the sole superpower and in fact America cannot even afford to be the sole superpower. Yet America has no obvious partner with which to share its superpowerdom, and if America were to cease being a superpower, nothing and no one would take its place.

This might not be the end of the world -- there are quite a few trouble spots that could do with a long period of benign neglect -- and it might not last forever. Europe, when counted as a single entity, is still the world's largest economy. China, whatever else it might be, is still the world's fastest-growing economy. Sooner or later the simple need to defend their economic interests might persuade one or both to start taking the outside world more seriously.

This does mean that the Obama administration has a problem, however: Having come to office promising to work with allies, it may soon discover that there are no allies with which to work. Europe is still our best hope, because Europeans share most of our values. But organizing sanctions with a divided Europe -- never mind a military operation -- will continue to be a major chore. China, meanwhile, is acquiring vast foreign interests, trading in Africa and South America as well as Asia, along with a vast army to match. But China appears uninterested in joining an international campaign against terrorism, nuclear proliferation or anything else.

Global military and security thus look set to remain in the hands of the United States, whether the United States wants it or not. Halfway through his presidency, George W. Bush found he had to drop unilateralism in favor of diplomacy. Now one wonders: At some point in his presidency, will Obama find he has to drop diplomacy in favor of unilateralism, too?

applebaumletters@washpost.com

[vector7]

UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading Lockheed F35 fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for

By David Gardner
Last updated at 12:36 AM on 26th November 2009

• Comments (116)
• Add to My Stories

British defence chiefs are furious over America’s refusal to share hi-tech secrets of a new radar-evading fighter jet that both countries are paying to develop.

The snub was seen last night as another blow to the ‘special relationship’ between the two countries at a critical time when President Obama is demanding more help from Britain in Afghanistan.

The row centres on the multi-billion pound development of Lockheed Martin’s futuristic new F-35 plane.


The F-35 plane has caused problems between Britain and America

Although the US is picking up the lion’s share of the cost, Britain is its biggest partner, pledging £1.2 billion as part of an international investment in the strike fighter programme.

Last night, it was revealed that the US plans to keep to itself a sensitive software code that provides the key to the jet’s electronic brains, despite the protest of its co-developers.

Royal Navy and Royal Air Force chiefs had demanded the code, which would allow the continued maintenance and upgrades of the F-35 without American involvement.

More...

• 'Dithering' Obama set to reveal decision to increase troops in Afghanistan by up to 35,000

But Jon Schreiber, who heads the programme’s international affairs, told Reuters news agency that no US partner will be getting the so- called source code.

‘That includes everybody,’ he said, acknowledging the decision was not popular in Britain or the other core partners, Italy, Holland, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

Three years ago, Paul Drayson, then Britain’s Minister for Defence Procurement, threatened to pull out of the F-35 programme if the US wouldn’t hand over the software code.

Later in 2006, Tony Blair and George Bush announced a joint agreement ‘that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the joint strike fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.’


Barack Obama and Gordon Brown: There are worries this latest disagreement could damage the 'special relationship' between Britain and America

Last night’s US claim appears to contradict that agreement.

By withholding the technology, the Americans effectively retain control of updating and maintaining the jet’s sensitive and highly complex computerised systems.

Rather than let its partners care for their own F-35 fleets, the US plans to set up a ‘reprogramming facility’ at Elgin Air Force base in Florida to further develop software and distribute upgrades to its disgruntled partners.

Software changes will be integrated there ‘and new operational flight programmes will be disseminated out to everybody who's flying the jet,’ Schreiber added.

‘Nobody’s happy with it completely,’ he admitted, but he insisted: ‘Everybody’s satisfied and understands.’

The single-engine plane is in early stages of production. It is designed to escape radar detection and switch quickly between air-to- ground and air-to-air missions while still flying - processes heavily dependent on its eight million lines of onboard software code.

The source code is a ‘kind of the holy grail’ for this, controlling everything from weapons integration to radar to flight dynamics, said Joel Johnson of TEAL Group, an aerospace consultancy in Fairfax, Virginia.

Schreiber said the US had accommodated all of its partners' requirements, providing ways for them to upgrade projected F-35 purchases even without the keys to the software.

Representatives of the British defense staff in Washington did not return telephone calls seeking comment last night.

Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, projects it will sell up to 4,500 F-35s worldwide to replace its F-16 fighter and 12 other types of warplanes for 11 nations initially.

The US eventually plans to spend roughly (pounds) 180 billion over the next 25 years to buy a total of 2,443 F-35 models, its costliest arms acquisition.

Competitors include Boeing Co's F/A-18E/F SuperHornet; the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by a consortium of British, German, Italian and Spanish companies; Saab AB's Gripen; Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale; and Russia's MiG-35 and Sukhoi Su-35.

[vector7]

Europe Needs to Cast USA Aside Before It Is Too Late

27.11.2009

The European Union needs the joint all-European army. The subject surfaced in the beginning of the 1990s, when European countries realized the scale of global changes after the fall of the iron curtain.

	BREAKING NEWS China to become world's largest economy
	Penthouse apartment in Shanghai up for grabs for $15 million More...

The US administration is very negative about the idea. The question about the all-European army was pushed into the background after the Balkan war, when European armies were acting within the framework of KFOR and NATO. The USA believed that one needed to strengthen NATO, and everyone agreed. France was trying to show resistance to it, but after the nation became a full-fledged member of NATO on Sarkozy’s initiative, the French administration forgot about the creation of the all-European army too.

Things changed in 2009. The European Parliament established the Rapid Deployment Force of the European Union in 2009.

Last week, officials of the Italian administration put forward a suggestion to look into the matter of the European Army again. Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini stated that Europe needed the army to deepen the European integration, optimize the spending on military operation in NATO and repulse possible threats.

It is worthy of note that every European country, which participates in the military operation in Afghanistan, has to maintain its contingent with arms and military hardware, although there can be bilateral agreements reached at this point. Europe could have a more rational approach to the issue once the continent has the joint army. For example, one country would supply tanks, another one – fighter jets, another one – communication systems, etc.

The European Union has a more important reason for creating the army. Europe wants to increase its weight in the world and turn into a real center of influence. Europe has not been happy with its role of America’s minor partner, not to mention its position of a subordinate member in NATO.

European leaders are also concerned about the global political revival of Asia and Africa. However, the biggest risk factor appeared with the creation of the union between the United States and China. Europe decided to create its Rapid Deployment Force soon after the presentation of the G2 project. Furthermore, the idea to create the joint EU Army was voiced against the background of the discussion of Obama’s visit to China.

If the USA and China unite into the G2, they will create the Pacific axis, and the Atlantic Alliance will be forgotten. The interests of America’s foreign policy has taken a different turn – to the East, which means that Europe must take care of its security.

"If we do not find a common foreign policy, there is the risk that Europe will become irrelevant. We will be bypassed by the G2 of America and China,” Mr. Frattini said.

[vector7]

America's Partners Are Now Treating Us Like A Third-World Country

Joe Weisenthal and Vincent Fernando |Dec. 11, 2009, 9:51 AM | 1,345 |

Tags: Europe, Manufacturing, China



Two recent stories regarding America and its global partners jump out to us:

• In Germany they're freaking out because all the good manufacturing jobs are coming to America -- courtesy of our super-weak dollar.

• And in China, they're slapping tarrifs on our steel, accusing us of dumping.

That's right.

The rest of the world now views us the way we, for decades, viewed the rest of the world. We complained about them getting our good manufacturing jobs, and dumping cheap-ass steel onto our shores, undercutting ours.

The world's so-called reserve currency has weakened to the point that we're regarded as a pesky third-world country, undermining developed mature economies.

Keep an eye out for this.

[vector7]

Europe, U.S. And NATO: The Declining Partnership

Source: Daniel Korski, European Council on Foreign Relations Posted on: 7th March 2010

It’s anti-Europe season again in the United States. Once the season opens (usually from the second year of a presidential mandate), Cabinet officials and analysts start hunting Europeans. “They don’t do enough. They don’t fight enough.”

Their complaints go on and on.

In a speech last week, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said: “The demilitarization of Europe – where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it – has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.” His views have been followed up by commentators. In Foreign Policy magazine, Andrew J Bacevich’s (”Let Europe Be Europe“) argued that the US should leave a dysfunctional NATO and hand the pacifist Europeans the remains of the Cold War alliance.

But this seasonal activity misses a fundamental point: the US and Europe are the best allies they’ve each got. Yes, they have similar traditions, share values and have a history of cooperation behind them. Yes, those interests are not always the same. But most importantly, the US and Europe are on the same side of today’s geopolitical dividing line: both are declining powers with a shared, vested interest in the liberal status quo.

Even if Europeans and Americans enjoy a standard of living enviable to the rest of the world, the reality of the “double decline” is unarguable. Their respective declines may be happening at different speeds, but there is no doubt the US and Europe will continue to slip into irrelevance.

Europe had one quarter of the world’s population in 1900, around 15% in 1950 and has only 7% today. Its share is expected to go down to 5% by 2050. The EU’s GDP as a percentage of global GDP has shrunk from 28% in 1950 to 21% today, and may be as little as 18% in 2050. True, the US’s decline is not as steep, but the rapid rise of countries like China, India and Brazil mean it will inevitably be pushed to the sidelines.

These facts are denied today only by an odd alliance of Hollywood studios, the Republican Party and romantic Europeans. Each of these are carrying on as before, perpetuating block-buster myths about the limitless power of the West.

The truth, however, is altogether more depressing. Yet it is upon this premise – and not how many troops European governments have deployed to Afghanistan – which should shape debates surrounding the transatlantic link and discussions about NATO’s future.

The fight against the Taliban is important but not endless – voters will not allow it to be. One day American and European soldiers will come home. Hopefully the withdrawal of all forces will come after a victory (however defined), but we all know that isn’t a given. Few people hearing President Obama’s West Point address earlier this year were left in any doubt that the US commitment is time-limited. It certainly seems that President Karzai believes NATO forces will not be in his country for as long as they have been. His recent moves to take control over a key election body, which received and documented reports of massive fraud in last year’s presidential vote, is his preparation for a post-American Afghanistan. Put simply, the US and Europe are leaving and even the Kabul government knows it.

So to judge allies on whether they are willing to join NATO’s fight against the Taliban is short-sighted. Imagine if the US had in the past chosen its allies exclusively on whether they were willing to fight alongside the 82 Airborne. That would have meant abandoning an alliance with Britain after Harold Wilson resisted repeated attempts by Lyndon Johnson to secure a British commitment of troops to the Vietnam War.

Thankfully, US policy-makers did not go down this route. Quite the opposite: after World War II they sought to cement an all-purpose alliance, based both on values and interests. They knew the importance of looking beyond the current war. Perhaps the end of the Cold War was a time to kill off NATO, but the Balkan crises of the 1990s and post-9/11 security challenges proved that the alliance was still needed.

The same is true today. The alternative – to replace NATO with an ad hoc ABCD alliance (for America, Britain, Canada and Denmark) may give the US enough firepower for today’s wars, but less of the legitimacy and flexibly that NATO offers.

What about Europe? Does the continent need the US for its defense?

My colleague Nick Witney says no. Russia is no longer a conventional threat, he argues, and though it may represent a challenge in a number of different ways, this cannot be stopped by NATO. The real challenge for Moscow is a birthrate plunge, a collapsing military, pervasive corruption and problems such as HIV, tuberculosis and heroin abuse — concentrated not just among ethnic Russians but also among those of childbearing age — which means that Russia is facing demographic decline. In his view, Russia is an ascending power in the short run, but it is a declining power in the long run.

But even if this analysis holds, the short-run may be a very uncomfortable period for Russia’s neighbors. Russia’s military may be hollowed-out, but, as in Georgia, it has shown it can still do damage.

With many NATO members worrying that the mutual self-defence commitment inherent in article 5 of the Atlantic Charter has been watered out, Russia’s power remains – and needs to be deterred including through conventional means, which requires a continued involvement by the US.

Of course NATO has to change. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is right to point to the alliance’s many deficiencies. In particular, greater European defence investments are needed if the US is to remain committed to the alliance. Here the US should advance, not sound the retreat. The EU’s member-states, even France and Britain, have lost and will never regain the ability to finance all the necessary capabilities by themselves. Only cooperation amongst Europeans can eliminate the massive waste associated with the duplication of resources by member-states, and help transform Europe’s armed forces into modern militaries capable of contributing to global security. The US administration should publicly support such efforts.

If it does back greater EU defence cooperation, the US is more likely to get the kind of ally in Europe it needs to address a range of contingencies as well as a partner to help manage, and even precipitate, a collective decline. Together, the US and Europe can help manage and perhaps even mitigate their collective decline. Alone, however, both will be hunted.

A version of this piece was published by Foreign Policy.

[vector7]

State Legislatures Must Censure Obama, While Standing With America and Its Allies

By Yomin Postelnik Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Obama administration’s foreign policy is appalling

The Obama administration’s foreign policy is appalling, and it is now the duty of whoever stands for elective office to speak out about it. We as a state can initiate trade agreements with our allies. We can pass resolutions condemning a shameful administration that apologizes for American heroism while defaming its staunchest allies.

It is noteworthy that Barack Obama has not only alienated Israel, America’s most steadfast ally. When members of his own party saw fit to rid Honduras of Ernesto Zelaya, a communist bent on turning his country into a dictatorship, Obama and Hillary Clinton did all that they could to return him to power. Great Britain, too, was shamed by the Obama administration.

Simply put, a man who goes to Buckingham Palace and introduces himself to the Queen by handing her an I-pod is nothing short of reckless. But that, and the hostile return of the Churchill bust, marked this administration’s first overture to the United Kingdom. The end result of this lunacy is that Great Britain is now five times more prone to side with Western Europe in any international dispute and far less likely to assume its traditional mediating role in any such situation.

As a state representative candidate myself, I do not make the following pledge lightly. If there were another way around it, I would pursue any other avenue, but given the outrageous lengths that the Obama administration has gone to in appeasing and emboldening terrorists, given their reckless stewardship of the economy and the full scale attack on our dollar (as printing $15 trillion in one year is nothing short of a disaster in the making, as anyone with the most basic knowledge of history or of economics can tell you) and based on their usurping of unauthorized powers by way of a team of unelected czars, I do not believe that any other solution exists.

As such, I pledge that upon my election to the Florida House, I will introduce a bill of censure against President Barack H. Obama. While this should ideally be done by Congress, the states cannot fall asleep at the wheel or shirk our duty as parts of a greater America. Being a state representative is an awesome responsibility and one that demands us to stand up to this insanity.

My campaign has said unequivocally that America has nothing to apologize for. Likewise, Israel, a country that has taken more precautions to protect the lives of civilians on the other side and who has never started a single one of the wars that were brought upon it, also has nothing to apologize for.
Each time that Israel gave land, the terrorists were emboldened

Yes, Israel won an increased amount of land in 1967. But Israel did not start that battle. They won it after they were aggressively surrounded by enemies on all sides who were very openly set on Israel’s destruction.

If the battle in Israel was a battle between residents of Chicago and the citizens of Detroit; if one side never made an aggressive move while the other side had openly targeted women and children, may G-d protect all, the side who justice and decency was on would be clear to all. It is also noteworthy that every discussion of regional peace has been about nothing more than how much Israel would give versus how much its enemies would stop attacking it. And each time that Israel gave land, the terrorists were emboldened. Netanyahu is right when he says that promoting mutual business, not dangerous land concessions, is the only possible road for peace.

Yet the strange thing is that in Israel, both the right as well as much of the left have come to understand that the only way to stand up to terror is to, well, stand up to it. That’s why Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were able to form a coalition. The only one who doesn’t get it is Tzipi Livni, who, to her credit, is doing whatever she can to dispel the notion that all Jews are smart.

America cannot show weakness. Such an attitude invites contempt and emboldens our enemies. When Obama was elected, people turned to me at the local McCain party and asked, very concerned, “what about Israel?” I answered that we cannot take our eye off the ball and that weakness in the face of terror would only harm America, may G-d protect this land and our allies. Weakness in the face of terror invites terrorists here by signaling that their fight will be easier than anticipated. That is not a signal that any nation mindful of its self preservation should be sending.

The above must serve as an awakening. Many of us have friends who are staunchly Democrat. Yet they fail to understand what the Democratic Party has become. For much of our history, the Republican Party was the clear civil rights party. In the 1930s, an economic debate over how to end the depression split the parties, with both sides making compelling arguments as each proposed solutions that they saw best to revamp the economy. At that time, most Jews and most of the American people sided with FDR.
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of the nature of terror and Iran has no greater friend than Joe Biden

But let me make this clear. No matter what side you were on of the economic debate of the 1940s, one thing is certain. The tables have turned, the parties have flipped and the party of Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan has become the party of Diane Watson, Jimmy Carter and Louis Farrakhan.

Compassion is no longer a part of their agenda.

The problem with the Obama administration does not stop and end with Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of the nature of terror and Iran has no greater friend than Joe Biden. When you hear about “conservative Democrats in Congress” you need to ask what exactly is conservative or even slightly moderate about acquiescence to the lunacy of this administration.
In the eyes of the media, a moderate is a murderer with a smile on his face

You see, Democrats and the state media fail to realize that Mahmoud Abbas is anything but a moderate. He was a high ranking PLO member when the PLO, not Hamas as wrongly reported, made the suicide bombing Mickey Mouse. He’s never backed down from his calls to violence to fellow PLO members. Simply put, in the eyes of the media, a moderate is a murderer with a smile on his face.
You may ask how this ties into a state campaign, so let me make this clear.

Being a state representative is an awesome responsibility. Had local politicians and the equivalent of state representatives stood up in Chile in the late 1960s there would have been no radical government of Salvador Allende that terrorized the populace.

Had local politicians stood up in Venezuela in the early 1990s, there would have been no Hugo Chavez.

And had local leaders raised their voices in Cuba in the 1950s, the murder squads of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara would have gone to Russia instead of wreaking havoc 90 miles off of our shores.

We need to be keenly aware that failed dogmas have been allowed to take hold on every continent of our globe because local leaders have failed to articulate their sound beliefs. I am aware of this and I pledge to do something about it.

We must also take measures at home to prevent the spread of terror. There’s a reason why radicals have recently been able to recruit supporters in record numbers.

Educational reform is key to our nation’s success. Spreading my lifeskills course is just one thing that needs to be done and that I will work on as we seek new methods to improve student motivation and to achieve success throughout the state.

Criminal justice reform, with shorter but harder labor sentences, is key to stopping first time and nonviolent offenders from becoming career criminals. Long sentences, aside from being wrong and useless, have allowed radical Islamists to recruit within the prison system. There is a better way that focuses on rehabilitation while allowing the corrections system to fill necessary labor contracts. As always, society benefits from simply doing the right thing.

I’m also the first candidate in the nation to make an issue of the simple fact that our shores are the frontline in the war on terror and that their proper surveillance should be priority number one.

This point is absolutely critical. Right now, anyone can take a ship from Saudi Arabia, or from anywhere else in the world, park 12 nautical miles off of our shores, load up a small yacht and we treat it as if that yacht had just come in from Chesapeake Bay. Am I hesitant to mention this? No – because this fact is well known to our enemies. The only question is, “What are we going to do about it?”

All this and more is what I pledge to accomplish for our state.

The Biblical traditions upon which this nation was founded tell us that G-d will eventually perfect the world. Indeed, over the past 25 years, we’ve seen many breakthroughs in medicine and technology and most of all, in human rights.

But during these last trying times each of us has a role to play to promote better government and to do our part to ensure a better society for all; one that values human rights, one that values age-old traditions and one that values people, families and community.

[vector7]

June 5, 2009
Barack and Michelle Obama decline dinner with the Sarkozys

Charles Bremner in Paris

The Obamas turn up in Paris this evening, but have declined a dinner invitation from the couple next door: the Sarkozys.

President Obama’s reluctance to spend more than minimum time with the French leader on his visit for the D-Day anniversary has come as an embarrassment to the Elysée Palace.

America’s First Family will not be dining with President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, even though they are staying at the residence of the US Ambassador, yards from the Elysée apartments where the Sarkozys spend their weekends.

Mr Sarkozy’s staff were trying yesterday to arrange another private moment between the couples. Mr Obama is due to fly back to Washington tomorrow night or on Sunday.

Multimedia

• Archive blog: de Gaulle and Roosevelt in D-Day frost

Related Links

• Obama's visit to Buchenwald holds message

Mr Sarkozy’s dream date would be dinner somewhere spectacular such as the Jules Verne, an Alain Ducasse restaurant on the Eiffel Tower. The Obamas were reported on French celebrity websites to be planning a meal there.

A glamorous joint outing might be compared with the ones that President de Gaulle undertook with John and Jackie Kennedy in 1961.

On that trip, Mrs Kennedy was such a hit that JFK presented himself as “the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris”.

Failure to socialise with the Obamas will add to mockery that has greeted Mr Sarkozy’s attempts to stage the 65th anniversary of D-Day as a “Barack and Sarko show”. The media and Opposition have mocked Mr Sarkozy over Mr Obama’s coolness towards him, which is only partly due to his handling of the Normandy commemoration.

Mr Sarkozy has been pilloried in France for his failure to invite the Queen to the events. “The palace is fearing a snub,” Le Parisien newspaper said yesterday after the news emerged of the Obamas’ plans to keep themselves to themselves.

Yesterday the popular comedian Nicolas Canteloup did an impression of Mr Sarkozy worrying that he had “only two days to become tall, handsome and elegant”. The French leader is 5½ inches shorter than Michelle Obama.

The French were also piqued after the White House said that it was working on an invitation to Normandy for the Royal Family. Face was saved when the Prince of Wales agreed to attend with Gordon Brown.

“Sarkozy has pulled off a double hit: insulting Queen Elizabeth and exasperating Obama,” the weekly Canard Enchaîné said on Wednesday.

French worries about being snubbed were matched in Germany, where media and politicians are convinced that the brevity of Mr Obama’s trip there and a decision to avoid Berlin demonstrated his disapproval of Angela Merkel, the Chancellor. Mr Obama was due in Germany last night for a visit to Dresden and the Buchenwald death camp.

Mr Obama’s irritation with his French counterpart began when Mr Sarkozy tried to grab the limelight at the G20 summit in London in April and talked condescendingly of the US President in private. Mr Sarkozy told colleagues that he found Mr Obama to be inexperienced and unbriefed, especially on climate change. Mr Obama hit back last month, telling a visiting French minister: “Please tell Nicolas that I shall do my homework, and in two months I’ll know all about climate change.”

The leaders will have lunch in Caen tomorrow while their wives meet near by. They will then all attend the ceremony at the US cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, above Omaha Beach.

Philippe Duron, the Mayor of Caen, has minted a slogan for his town in honour of Mr Obama: “Yes we Caen!”

[vector7]

France is our biggest ally, declares Obama: President's blow to Special Relationship with Britain

By Tim Shipman
Last updated at 6:27 PM on 11th January 2011

• Comments (1240)
• Add to My Stories

Barack Obama has declared that France is America’s greatest ally, undermining Britain’s Special Relationship with the U.S.

The President risked offending British troops in Afghanistan by saying that French president Nicolas Sarkozy is a ‘stronger friend’ than David Cameron.

The remarks, during a White House appearance with Mr Sarkozy, will reinforce the widely-held view in British diplomatic circles that Mr Obama has less interest in the Special Relationship than any other recent American leader.


Offence: President Obama said France is America's greatest ally, which has caused anger in Britain


Not so close: President Obama shares a joke with David Cameron during a meeting at the US Ambassador's residence in London in 2009

Mr Obama said: 'We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.'

The comments follow a pattern of coldness towards the UK. When Gordon Brown was prime minister, Mr Obama snubbed his requests for meetings in the U.S.

He also denounced Britain during his inauguration speech.
The UK has lost nearly 350 troops in the war against the Taliban – seven times as many as France.

And there are more than 10,000 British soldiers serving in Helmand province, compared with just 3,850 Frenchmen.Mr Obama's stance was swiftly condemned in Westminster.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former commander of the Sherwood Foresters regiment, said: 'I’m getting a bit fed up with the American President using terms like "best ally" so loosely.

'It’s Britain that has had more than 300 servicemen killed in Afghanistan, not France.

'That to my mind is a lot more powerful than any political gesture making.'

The remarks also angered conservatives in Washington.

Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre For Freedom at the Heritage Foundation think-tank, said: 'Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the U.S. President is difficult to fathom.

'And if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in foreign policy.'Dr Gardiner, a former aide to Lady Thatcher, added: 'To suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is simply ludicrous.

'Such a remark is not only factually wrong but insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq.'

[vector7]

Obama agrees to give Russia Britain's nuclear secrets as partial payment to restart relations and sign START treaty

The British newspaper The Telegraph has reported that part of the price which President Obama paid to get Russia to sign the START treaty, limiting nuclear arms, was revealing to the Russians the hitherto secret size of the British nuclear arsenal. Read more at link...

[Ryan Ruck]

Another Slap In The Face For Britain: The Obama Administration Sides With Argentina And Venezuela In OAS Declaration On The Falklands

June 8, 2011

President Obama was effusive in his praise for the Special Relationship when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue. Washington signed on to a “draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands” passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily pushed by Argentina. In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua.

The declaration calls for Argentina and Great Britain to enter into negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position which London has long viewed as completely unacceptable. It also comes in the wake of increasing aggression by the Kirchner regime in the past 18 months, including threats to blockade British shipping in the South Atlantic.

The OAS declaration, adopted at the fourth plenary session on June 7, states:

It has not yet been possible to resume the negotiations between the two countries with a view to solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body on the same question in the Special Committee on Decolonization, and the reiterated resolutions and declarations adopted at this General Assembly; and

HAVING HEARD the presentation by the head of delegation of the Argentine Republic,

WELCOMES the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine Government to continue exploring all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute and its constructive approach towards the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands.

REAFFIRMS the need for the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume, as soon as possible, negotiations on the sovereignty dispute, in order to find a peaceful solution to this protracted controversy.

DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.

Washington backed a similar resolution in June last year, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear in a joint press conference with Cristina Kirchner in Buenos Aires in March 2010 that the Obama administration fully backs Argentina’s calls for negotiations over the Falkands, handing her Argentine counterpart a significant propaganda coup. The State Department has also insultingly referred to the Islands in the past as the Malvinas, the Argentine name for them.

It is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests. Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain will never give in to threats from Argentina or its tyrannical allies in places such as Venezuela. The White House recently declared that Britain remains America’s most important ally. Now it should live up to its words by supporting Washington’s closest friend and partner on matters of vital British interest, including the future of British subjects living in the South Atlantic, whose only wish is to remain free under the protection of the Union Jack.

As Margaret Thatcher famously reminded the world, in an address to the House of Commons after the Argentine invasion in April 1982, the Falklands are, and always will remain British:

The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our Endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.

[American Patriot]

In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua.

Who the HELL does this guy think he is????????????????????????????????????????????

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Administration Backs Argentina Over U.K. on Falkland Dispute

June 10, 2011

The Obama administration once again has sided with Argentina -- and by default, against Britain -- in the ongoing dispute over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war.

In a move one British conservative analyst called "hugely insulting to Britain," the Organization of American States earlier this week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands. While the U.S. delegation did not speak in support of the measure, it ultimately joined a consensus adopting it.

However, Britain does not consider the sovereignty in question. After the British fended off an Argentine invasion of the nearby islands in 1982 -- a war in which hundreds died on both sides -- the government continues to assert control over the Falklands and grant islanders British citizenship.

Britain has resisted international calls for the two nations to negotiate the issue -- which makes the U.S. position all the more peculiar.

Noting that President Obama just returned from a visit to London where he cited the U.S.-U.K. "special relationship," Heritage Foundation analyst Nile Gardiner said the U.S. should at least stay neutral on the Falkland issue.

"British sovereignty over the islands is not an issue for negotiation. ... This is a slap in the face for America's closest friend and ally," he said, accusing the administration of siding with Venezuela and others against its friend.

"This is a bizarre foreign policy," he added. Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, whose namesake was prime minister during the Falklands War.

The Obama administration made clear in early 2010 that it would endorse calls for talks over the islands. At a Buenos Aires news conference with Argentina's president in March 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she agreed with Argentina that the two nations should "sit down and resolve the issues between them."

From there, the U.S. implicitly backed an OAS document calling for talks last June and again Tuesday at a conference in El Salvador. The latest declaration, which refers to the islands as the Malvinas Islands, calls for exploring "all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute" and resuming sovereignty negotiations "as soon as possible."

It was accompanied by some tough words toward Britain. In an OAS press release, Argentine foreign minister Hector Timerman said: "Unfortunately, Britain still declines to resume bilateral dialogue, in violation not only of repeated resolutions of the United Nations and this Organization." Timerman called for a "peaceful settlement to the dispute."

In the wake of the adoption, the British government quietly asserted its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands while downplaying the U.S. position -- stressing that the Obama administration continues to recognize British control of the territory.

"The longstanding U.S. position is unchanged. The U.S. recognizes the U.K.'s administration of the Falkland Islands," a British Embassy representative told FoxNews.com. "We're in regular touch with the U.S. on this issue, as on so many issues, and we expect that dialogue to continue."

The government on the Falkland Islands expressed disappointment with the OAS declaration. According to a report in MercoPress, Falkland officials issued a statement saying they "regret that this issue should once again be raised on the regional stage" and support the standing British position that "the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable."

[vector7]

Apologies Not Accepted

Posted 10/11/2011 06:29 PM ET


In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor. View Enlarged Image

Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?

The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.

Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.

It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.

One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.

Whatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.

While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.

[vector7]

OBAMA: All countries are close allies!!

Published on Mar 8, 2012 by DETORTV
Barack Obama and the US has a lot of close and strong allies in the world. And all small countries punches above their weight according to the president. From the show Detektor, Danish Broadcasting Corporation DR. Host is Thomas Buch-Andersen.

[American Patriot]

You know I never believed in that "One World" bullshit.

Now I am seeing the light.