I’m a little late to this story. I’ve been away from Politico for about a month now, and it appears that was not the best decision. In Mitt Romney’s latest opinion piece, he lays down some very heavy criticism of President Obama. And, no, we’re not talking about charges of socialism or a secret religious history. Romney sets out a couple of key points that I’ve been frustrated with myself for this second half of Obama’s first year in office.
First, Obama has thrown too much of his attention to politically murky and unnecessary projects of reform. energy policy and health care reform are tremendous issues that effect a lot of people, but they most certainly should not take top priority when our country is both
occupying the two countries of Iraq and Afghanistan
in the midst of the greatest financial pitfall since the 30s
I may not agree with Romney’s proposed solutions to these two problems, but I certainly cannot disagree with him about their importance.
Second, Obama’s careful consideration of the situation in Afghanistan before last night’s announcement of troop deployment, appears to me to be incredibly indecisive. I understand that there are pressures from all sides, but military decisions aren’t the kind of thing you can go on a whirlwind town hall tour about. You have to sit down with all of the information at your disposal, and figure out the best use of American resources. Romney would argue the troop deployment has been a long time coming. I personally feel Afghanistan lost all legitimacy when the most recent election was riddled with fraud, clearly revealing the domestic rejection of their own government. But I think we would both agree that taking this long to come to a decision is disheartening.
It may be too early to begin considering the 2012 Republican Party nominee, but I think Mitt Romney may have learned a lesson or two from 2008. He’s shaping up to be a real voice of reason outside of the petty fights in the Capitol.
a south american conflict in the making
There’s a pretty good bit of information involved in this particular political squabble. The short of it is that today Venezuela blew up a couple of walking bridges that lead over the Colombian border. They claim it was in the name of stopping drug trafficking, but it’s pretty obvious that they are trying to act out of aggression without drawing much consequence. They want to make sure Colombia knows they’re prepared for war if it comes down to it.
This is where some explanation probably needs to come in, because Colombian trade relations have been a little strained by a little bit of dithering over the last 18-24 months. That’s all I’ve heard about Colombia for a pretty good while, but Colombia is still perceived as a US ally. The main reason? The very war on drugs Venezuela is scapegoating. American troops have been granted special access to Colombian military bases in the name of stopping the drug wars. The maneuver as far as I can tell has had very limited success in stopping drug trade, but very impressive success in keeping the Colombian peoples safe.
The United States of America, being the political dynamo it is, has been drawing some pretty heavy criticism from some Latin American countries. In my opinion, this decision really needs to be put in the hands of the powers of the region. I have no problem with backing down on international drug policing if Colombians want to avoid conflict with their neighbors, but the government of Colombia has taken a hard stand on the matter. They will not be pushed around. And Brazil and the US have backed the Colombians.
This may be a big stink about nothing, but the Venezuelan government is not something to be trusted easily. When they claim they are ready for war, I don’t think we should assume it’s posturing. Venezuela has a genuine fear of American invasion, and many of its Central American allies are weary of the United States becoming entrenched too far south.
I can almost guarantee that something significantly more important than a walking bridge is going to be blown up soon, and then we may see some serious shifting of power dynamics in the area. Perhaps Brazil will get to flex some real political muscle in the region sooner than expected.
I felt it apt to do a little reflecting on an article this evening since my brain hasn’t been stirred into anything particularly fresh. Attached to this article is also a 3 minute audio interview with Edward Luce about the significance of Obama’s China visit.
The real point to draw from the article (and the China visit itself) is the nature of the relationship between what are undoubtedly the two most influential powers on the world stage. Obama has now met with Hu Jintao three times, discussing such wide issues as human rights, economic collapse, and energy policy. Though I have not been entirely impressed with the tangible results thus far, it seems great headway is at least being made toward setting the groundwork for cooperation.
China has not yet developed into the world economic player it hopes to become, and America realizes it cannot feasibly tackle all of the world issues alone. Coming into their third meeting with these two things in mind, it seems that each country needs the other, and that the world would be better off with both of them on friendly terms.
But those are broader issues not specifically related to what the talk really seemed to be about. The subject of the meetings with Premier Wen was the same as the subject of the entire ten day Asian tour: trade. Both parties (China and the US) renewed vows to open up trans-Pacific trade. I could not ask for more refreshing words. Do I believe them? That remains to be seen. But in light of the recent tariffs leveed against tires from China and the sporadic but concerning protectionism from most of the countries involved in the London G-20 Summit, I’m pleased to see the two major economies of the world at least paying lip service. It sets a good example.
The conversation continued into conversation about the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China sang of how it aims to make conducting business 25% cheaper. The US pledged to be remain active.
Beyond APEC were very specific policy changes. Obama waxed poetic about the importance of cracking down on piracy, and China talked of opening markets for energy and pork of all things.
All in all, the meeting sounded out the right tune, and Obama’s willingness to call out China (even in the abstract) over internet security speaks a little to the nature of the relationship. It’s tentative. There’s a lot of common ground and a lot of room for criticism. If both powers can be candid and on the same page, I’m not sure there are many world issues that can’t be attacked with at least modest success.
