Monthly Archives: December 2009

Posted on by

obama’s foreign policy year in review

al-jazeera/ a year of little change

Barack Obama’s First Year in Foreign Policy

This past year has not been a successful year for the 44th President of the United States. Although the Barack Obama Administration has had the incredible luxury of having its own political party – the Democrats – control the House of Representatives and the Senate by wide margins, there has been little progress on domestic and international issues. Obama and his team have the ability to pass any bill and create any new law they want without relying on a single Republican vote. And yet, the Obama Administration has failed to capitalize on that advantage. As Obama came into office, he promised lots of change. But so far, not much has changed. Domestically, the United States is facing the largest unemployment in decades and the American budget deficit is at an all time high. Internationally, the United States may now appear to be more popular but it’s largely because we aren’t asking countries to do much these days. The Obama team isn’t leading the world. They have chosen the easy path of non-confrontation. Copenhagen is proof. Sadly, the Administration has confused popularity with progress. Let’s take a closer look at a few of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy priorities over the last year:

Iran

Consecutive United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iran were passed during the Bush Administration and the pressure was placed on the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium. Resolution 1737 imposed strict sanctions on the Government of Iran and was passed unanimously by the Security Council on December 23, 2006 after weeks of negotiations and stalling tactics from China and Russia. Resolutions 1696, 1747 and 1803, all passed during the Bush Administration, kept the pressure mounting on Iran to abide by the international community’s demands to suspend all nuclear enrichment activity. Despite grumblings from Security Council members about having to vote for such measures, the Bush Administration forced the votes and in the end was able to get multiple resolutions passed with unanimous support. Where Bush successfully isolated the Government of Iran, the Obama Administration has eased the pressure on them and the members of the Security Council. Instead of building on all of the work that had been done to negotiate sanctions, the Obama Administration pushed the “reset button” and started over, thereby releasing the mounting pressure. The Russians and Chinese were relieved that UN resolution negotiations were not proceeding with urgency. China and Russia even complimented the Obama Administration as a group of “good listeners” and the new process as “respectful”. The Government of Iran, too, was pleased to have more time to enrich uranium and less pressure to stop their delivery system testing. The Obama Administration hasn’t produced a single UN Security Council resolution on Iran since it took office – the last one passed by President Bush a full 15 months ago. The Obama Administration’s policy on Iran has been a complete failure and has only strengthened Iran’s resolve.

Afghanistan/Pakistan

President Obama’s December announcement that he will send 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan was a welcomed sign for the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although the Obama team spent too much time fretting over their decision to add the troops because it would upset activists in the Democratic Party, Obama’s decision was a courageous one. Democratic leaders, however, are not pleased with the President’s decision. Nancy Pelosi recently said that it will be up to President Obama to make his own case for the troop increase because lawmakers are skeptical and Dennis Kucinich has vowed to offer a bill that would pull all American troops from Afghanistan immediately. President Obama is now in the uncomfortable position of having to count on Republicans to support his troop increase decision and give him one of his few victories this year. Obama’s announcement now makes the war in Afghanistan his war to win or lose. In Pakistan, the Obama team has a mixed record over the last year. While making the Afghanistan announcement in conjunction with a new robust strategy to confront terrorists in Pakistan, the Obama team has signaled their willingness to think strategically in the region. For America, a successful Afghanistan strategy can only be achieved when al-qaeda and the Taliban are wiped out in both countries – Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan alone is of no strategic value to the United States. While we hope that democracy can be achieved for the people of Afghanistan and that they will be able to have a greater quality of life, these pursuits of human rights and development should be led by the United Nations. Pakistan, however, is a more important strategic partner for the United States and Obama has yet to recognize it. Ensuring that the Government of Pakistan is able to deal with its extremists should be a top priority for America. So far, Obama has not been able to develop a strategy to deal with President Asif Zadari and the growing anti-Americanism in his country.

Iraq

Candidate Obama promised to pull troops from Iraq as soon as he took office. But President Obama learned that it wasn’t possible. Republicans were pleased that Obama took the advice of his military advisors and changed his policy but his Democratic colleagues have continued to complain about a campaign promise that is still unfulfilled. In trying to capitalize on the growing American frustration over the lack of progress in Iraq, candidate Obama outmaneuvered Hilary Clinton and then John McCain. The many Americans who voted for Obama because they wanted the troops to come home from Iraq have also been disappointed. But the Administration is gambling that an emphasis on a troop increase in Afghanistan and a new robust strategy for Pakistan will insulate them from charges of military weakness in Iraq.

Israel and Palestine

Perhaps the one issue that brought Arabs around the world the most hope for progress with the election of Barack Obama was the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Even some in America were hopeful that Obama would be able to reassure the Palestinians and America’s historical tie with Israel would be sufficient enough to bring the parties together to form a permanent peace. But Barack Obama stumbled early on with his Cairo speech and his directive on settlements. He failed to challenge Arabs to act during his Cairo speech and it was seen by Israel and many in America as a missed opportunity. His public instruction that Israel cease all settlement activity was also a misstep. American Presidents can privately cajole and push the parties to negotiate but no American President can dictate to the parties what should be done. Obama must learn that the Palestinians and the Israelis must each bargain and agree to the terms of any peace deal on their own if it is to last.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

you’re doing a heck of a job, janet

huff post – grenell on napolitano

Janet Napolitano Is Doing a Heck of a Job.

Remember when President Bush told FEMA Director Michael Brown he was doing a heck of a job with the Hurricane Katrina response? Now comes Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano’s characterization and subsequent spin that “the system worked” in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s Detroit terror scare proves that she isn’t qualified to be the head of Homeland Security in a post-9/11 world. The Christmas Day terrorism scare over Detroit was a test and she failed it.

Roughly eight years has passed since 2,973 people were killed on September 11, 2001 because terrorists boarded a plane and used it as a weapon. This week, another terrorist successfully boarded a plane with the intent of using it as a weapon against Americans – just like on September 11, 2001. And Janet Napolitano, the woman charged with keeping us safe, thinks all went well. We are lucky that Abdulmuttalab’s bomb failed to go off as he planned. We are also lucky to find out now that Napolitano isn’t equipped to lead a massive agency designed to keep us safe from international terrorists. Napolitano should resign and if she fails to do so then President Obama should ask for her resignation and replace her immediately. Napolitano should be replaced before she has to deal with an incident far greater than the one she just glossed over. Whatever her spin is now of her initial reaction to a major terrorist breach of security isn’t sufficient. Americans have lost faith in Janet Napolitano.

It’s not that Napolitano wasn’t a good Arizona Attorney General or Governor – she may well have been. Since I have never lived in Arizona I don’t have an opinion on her tenure and legacy. But the idea that a politician is equipped to lead a national agency charged with keeping Americans safe just because she worked her way up the Arizona political ladder is naïve and dangerous. Being the Secretary of Homeland Security is a serious job that requires thoughtful expertise in complicated international issues and shouldn’t be a political reward. Napolitano doesn’t have the international experience or the anti-terrorism background needed to lead an agency with over 200,000 employees and a budget of more than $50 billion. Napolitano’s experience in immigration and border issues from her days in Arizona equip her for the United States Border Control Agency or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But it is clear that she isn’t qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security. With politics being what it is – patronage for political colleagues – she flew through the confirmation process with little questioning from the Democratically controlled Senate. Most Americans now have lost faith in her ability to keep us safe from terrorists in the sky or on land. She has proven to be a weak link in a critical role and President Obama should let her go.

But don’t count on a rational decision coming out of the White House on this issue anytime soon. It took President Obama 3 full days to break away from his Hawaii trip to respond to this serious breach in security that affects every American. When Obama finally spoke about the incident he said, “We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.” Of course, he did rest and for 3 days. Americans would have more confidence in President Obama and Janet Napolitano if he would have spoken these words immediately after the incident instead of golfing in Hawaii and lounging poolside for several days; and if she would have ordered an immediate review of all airline security procedures – not suggested that all went as planned. The idea that a large airliner was almost blown from the sky if not for luck and our President went to play golf without speaking to nervous Americans is scary enough but sending out his Secretary of Homeland Security to tell us all went well is even more troubling. We want to believe the President when he said on February 23, 2009, “My highest priority is to keep the American people safe.” But if his top priority is to keep us safe from terrorists then he needs to replace an obvious weak link in the system.

Luck and luck alone averted a major terrorist attack on American soil on Christmas Day 2009. And the Obama team failed to take the incident seriously. A full four days after the foiled attack someone in the Administration finally got around to requesting a full review of airline procedures. It is pretty clear that the Obama team isn’t as experienced in fighting terrorism as they should be. Less than a year into the Obama Administration’s term and its clear we need some change in leadership – Napolitano must go.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

obama’s popularity isn’t translating into progress

huffington post/front page

Obama’s Popularity Isn’t Translating Into Progress

The White House staff should never allow Barack Obama to go to Copenhagen again. The last time Obama went to Copenhagen the United States got thrown out of the 2016 Olympic bidding process in the first round. This last week, Obama went to Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference and he lost an international agreement on one of his priority issues. If Obama can’t convince the international community to go along with one of his signature issues then the President’s clout isn’t what some Americans claim it is. Other than healthcare reform, President Obama has talked about global warming and climate change issues more than almost any other issue during the campaign and since taking office. The Copenhagen disaster is a real sign of Obama’s shallow influence internationally.

The biggest news coming out of Copenhagen, but not covered by the American media, is that Obama hasn’t been able to convince other Countries to act even though he is the most popular Head of State. One year into Obama’s Presidency and the international community has yet to take action on any U.S. priority. You have to wonder why world leaders claim to love him but won’t follow him.

Obama’s popularity and charisma failed to convince the world to bring the Olympics to the U.S., to sign the Copenhagen agreement, to produce new additional NATO troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, to produce any additional action on confronting Iran’s continued uranium enrichment and even to convince his own Democratic party to support some of his priority issues.

Candidate Obama received the media’s overt support throughout the primary and general elections and became an international super star. Today, Barack or Michelle Obama continue to appear on large and medium sized magazine covers from health and fitness publications to news periodicals to cooking and sports magazines and in nearly every language.

But Copenhagen has shown that we shouldn’t confuse Obama’s popularity with progress. He is clearly popular in other countries but it is because he isn’t asking them to act. Or if he is, he isn’t strong enough to convince them. They love the easy ride.

Iran’s illegal enrichment of uranium is a perfect example of Obama’s weakness. During the Bush Administration, President Bush and his team were able to isolate Iran and organize the international community to produce Security Council sanctions and a total of 3 UN resolutions. Although forcing the Security Council to negotiate and ultimately vote on tough resolutions is never easy and always unpopular, it is an important leadership test. China, Russia and others weren’t happy to be forced to confront Iran – but ultimately Iran sanctions were passed with unanimous support.
The Obama team has chosen to take the easy and popular path. There has been no increase in sanctions or additional UN resolutions on Iran since the Bush Administration ended. In fact, multiple deadlines have passed without repercussions for the Government of Iran. Enrichment continues at multiple sites in Iran even though the UN Security Council has demanded the Government suspend enrichment with verification.

Obama’s popularity may produce large crowds and warm compliments, but one thing I learned while serving 8 years at the United Nations is to be suspicious when you are the most popular guy in a room full of international negotiators.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

pelosi ignores the gay marriage issue because there are no consequences

cbsnews.com/pelosi and grenell

So What Will Pelosi Do About DC Gay Marriage?

By Richard Grenell

Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes. But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill — one of her district’s most important issues — before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.

Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn’t an overstatement to say that these three Democrats – Pelosi, Reid and Obama – can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas – no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda. Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.

So why aren’t these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?

The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn’t able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the Nation’s Capital has and now needs Pelosi’s support.

What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority – this past year has proven that to be true – but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular – and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not. The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don’t want to. But civil governments don’t make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.

But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal. Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue so why are all gay leaders in one political party?

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

obama takes credit for a bush policy

huffpost.com/grenell

The Obama Team is Taking Credit for a Bush Policy

The White House this week leaked intelligence information to the New York Times to suggest that their North Korea policy is working. And although David Sanger from the Times was all too quick to buy the Administration’s line, an honest assessment of the Obama team’s claims shows that the successful policy they highlight was designed and first implemented in the Bush Administration.

Over the weekend, an airplane leaving North Korea with a cargo of illegal weapons was seized by Thailand. The Thai intelligence authorities worked with American officials to determine that the 5 member crew from a cargo company in the Republic of Georgia was carrying roughly 30 tons of illegal military equipment.

The Obama team points to the recently passed United Nations Security Council Resolution on North Korea, Resolution 1874, as evidence that they can design a strategy to contain North Korea from gaining weapons and materials to make or launch a nuclear weapon like seizing the Georgian plane. UN Security Council Resolution 1874, however, authorizes countries to board sea vessels and ships, not airplanes. The New York Times highlighted story in Thailand was an airplane and therefore technically didn’t fall under the Obama team’s UN resolution – it was a Bush Administration resolution that gave the authority to seize the plane.

Additionally, the White House and the New York Times missed the fact that the UN Security Council has had sanctions on the DPRK for years. In rushing to trumpet the Obama team’s erroneous claims, the New York Times failed to understand that it is already illegal to carry arms in or out of North Korea. The Bush Administration passed the UN Security Council resolution that made it illegal to transfer illegal weapons by sea or air – or any means. Thailand has been authorized, albeit expected, to seize ships and planes suspected of carrying illegal cargo since 2006. Resolution 1695, passed July 15, 2006, reads in operative paragraphs 3 and 4:

3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology being transferred to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;

4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items, materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial
resources in relation to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;

And Resolution 1718, passed October 14, 2006, says in operative paragraphs 7 and 8:

7. Decides also that the DPRK shall abandon all other existing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner;

8. Decides that:
(a) All Member States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories…

Further, early in the Bush Administration John Bolton conceived of and implemented a successful program called The Proliferation Security Initiative or PSI. PSI acted as a coalition of the willing searchers. Several countries in and around North Korea have been working together for quite some time to patrol the water, land and air for possible illegal shipments going in and coming out of North Korea. The Japanese, in particular, have been very concerned and have aggressively been watching North Korean exports and imports. Countries interested in intercepting cargo going in and out of North Korea have been stopping and boarding suspicious vessels for many years. Once Bolton was at the United Nations as our American Ambassador, he was able to draft similar language used from the successful PSI program into UN Security Council mandated resolutions thereby compelling countries to work to ensure no illegal weapons entered or left North Korea with a UN mandated appeal.

However, The New York Times’ David Sanger yesterday wrote, “The Obama administration is trying to show that it will choke off the North’s illicit exports even while attempting to reopen nuclear talks. In interviews in recent weeks, several officials said they believed that the Bush administration, which came to office seeking to topple the North Korean government of Kim Jong-il, mistakenly eased pressure on him while pursuing disarmament accords, almost all of them since renounced by the North.”

While Resolution 1874 is an additional constraint on North Korea, it is redundant and not as thorough as Resolutions 1695 and 1718. Resolutions 1695 and 1718, more important resolutions passed during the Bush Administration, established wide-ranging sanctions on DPRK back in 2006.

The simple fact is that during the Bush Administration the pressure was greatly increased on the North Koreans, not decreased as the White House and the Times says. I have written to David Sanger asking him and the New York Times to correct the record but so far I haven’t heard back.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

bill clinton must be furious with obama’s nobel win

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/what-peace-did-he-achieve_b_386972.html

What Peace Did He Achieve?

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barack Obama have all been given Nobel Peace Prizes. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have not.

Since 1901, the Nobel Committee has awarded the annual Prize to an entity, group or individual who works for peace in a significant way. Well, technically there have been 19 times that the Committee felt as if no one deserved the Prize and chose not to name a winner. The last time no winner was named was 1972.

Nancy Reagan must surely be disappointed that her husband helped bring Communism to its knees and yet President Reagan didn’t get the Prize, Mikhail Gorbachev did in 1990. Although maybe there is still hope for Reagan since Dag Hammarskjold won the prize in 1961 after he was dead. And Jimmy Carter was first ignored in 1978 after bringing Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat together to forge a peace deal between Egypt and Israel. Begin and Sadat won that year instead and Carter won a make-up award in 2002. Gore didn’t win as a sitting U.S. Vice President – he also got a make-up win later in 2007. Although Charles Dawes was a sitting U.S. Vice President in 1925 when he won for the Allied Reparation Commission.

Although you don’t have to be Mother Teresa to win one (she won in 1979), Bill Clinton still hasn’t been awarded the Prize and I am sure he must be furious. All that work on the Dayton Peace Accords and handshakes on Middle East peace at Camp David weren’t enough to get President Clinton the nod. Although other sitting Presidents have won – Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

While some people talk about Obama’s win as an award for the HOPE of peace, last week’s escalation of war in Afghanistan with the announcement of an additional 30,000 American troops certainly is awkward timing.

And if the criteria to win the Prize is about HOPE, then why not John Danforth in 2004 for bringing the Northern and Southern Sudanese leaders together to sign an agreement in front of the United Nations Security Council whom he brought to Kenya, Africa in a special session? Or George Mitchell could have been this year’s make-up win, like Carter was, for the plethora of issues he has worked on or is currently working on. At least HOPING for Mitchell is based on past performances.

The United Nations seems to win without the Committee looking at its performance record. And UN Secretary-Generals are a shoe-in to win the Prize just by getting their title. Kofi won in 2001, the UN peacekeepers in 1988, UNHCR in 1981. And although UNICEF hasn’t won since 1965, they are currently led by a Republican so we all understand why they aren’t currently eligible.

The Nobel Prize Committee has damaged its credibility by giving the 2009 Prize to Barack Obama. It should have chosen a make-up award from past credible peace makers or it could have made this the 20th time it hasn’t named a winner.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

home healthcare on the chopping block

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/07/opinion/main5927600.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Home Healthcare On The Chopping Block

In confronting healthcare reform, President Obama and his team have intellectualized a change that may seem to make sense on paper but doesn’t conform with the reality of our current system. President Obama continues to focus on cutting waste and fraud from Medicare while insisting that his budget cuts will not cut services to the millions of older Americans that rely on Medicare for their healthcare. “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits,” Obama recently said.

But the simple fact is that the President and The White House have no control over how Medicare service providers prioritize their spending or service delivery. The President can insist that he doesn’t want Medicare services to be cut but when he greatly reduces the amount of money the federal government will pay for Medicare; service providers alone get to decide how to deal with that revenue loss. It is the private sector service providers, not the President, that decide what to cut and how to cut. For example, Medicare providers will decide if they continue to pay their workers the same amount of money but cut services – or – if they cut the number of workers delivering the services – or – if they just take less profit. Obama has envisioned a free-market system that will just take less profit. The President is either intellectually naïve because of his lack of experience outside the classroom or strategically trying to manipulate our way of life.

But this is America and we have a free-market system that is more about supply and demand than it is about altruism. As much as the President has intellectualized a healthcare change that will act collectively, his plan is impractical in a capitalistic society. Obama’s healthcare reform efforts are, in fact, a dangerous assault on America’s current system. My Harvard Economics Professor taught me that whenever government mandates a price or manipulates the market the entire model gets flipped upside down. Professor Obama should know that any kind of government intervention in the free-market system causes the system to act irrationally, not collectively.

Home healthcare is the perfect example of Obama’s academic thinking. Over the last 10 years, home healthcare services have dramatically increased in an effort to decrease expensive hospitalization costs. Home healthcare has become a relatively inexpensive way to care for patients who do not need round the clock care from a hospital or nursing home. If we are trying to save money within the healthcare system we should be advocating for more homecare not less. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that the Democratic plan currently being debated drastically cuts homecare spending. Home healthcare services would absorb more than 13 percent of the proposed Medicare cuts to the tune of $43 billion.

If Obama and company want to keep healthcare costs down then home healthcare should be expanded not cut. If older Americans or active people want to recover in the comfort of their home rather than in a hospital or nursing home then we should encourage their decision.

But yesterday, the Democratically-controlled Senate followed President Obama’s plan and put home care on the chopping block. President Obama, however, continues to insist that Medicare services and patient options will not be diminished even though providers will have a $43 billion hole to fill.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

usc annenberg school of communications, grenell in the news

USC.AnnenbergSchool/grenell

CNN ran an op-ed by Richard Grenell of the USC Annenberg School about the challenges President Obama faces. “President Obama is in a unique position these days. As a Democratic president of the United States, he has a House of Representatives with 258 Democrats and only 177 Republicans and a Senate with 58 Democrats and only 40 Republicans,” Grenell wrote. “Obama is laying out a new Afghanistan policy and will be able to count on the Republicans to make sure it is funded. While members of the president’s own party were working to delay and stop his decision, the minority party is giving the president the support he needs.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post