National Security Online Resource Center

If anyone has the patience to read an entire Barack Obama speech, here is the entire transcript courtesy of cnn.com. I will highlight a few interesting moments here. But as Obama’s speeches mean little without action, I will not discuss his speech in depth. Such commentary will be saved for his actions/inactions on the foreign policy front as they come to light.

Many commentators have noted that Obama sounded like George Bush in his speech. He defended troop presences in Afghanistan and Iraq, and acknowledged Bush’s “just war theory:”

“The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”

He also noted that actions take more than words. Despite his campaign speech where he challenged the assertion that “words don’t matter,” and his belief that he could assuage our enemies’ hatred of us with simple speeches, he now appears to see the error of this assumption:

“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

I will evaluate further when he actually DOES something new.

In 2005, Condoleezza Rice gave a biting speech in Cairo demanding Egyptians to embrace democratic principles. Egypt was angry. President Hosni Mubarak skipped his Spring meeting in Washington D.C. As such, President Obama’s speech made no such demands in his speech a few weeks ago. A few days ago, Nobel Laureate and outgoing head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei was blasted by the Egyptian state media for putting his name forward for the upcoming presidential elections in 2011.

The state controlled media is criticizing for him for his international service and lack of political expereince. “Imported president for Egypt,” read the headline of state-owned Al Ahram el-Messaei, along with a large front page cartoon portraying Mr ElBaradei as a foreigner. Another newspaper suggested that Mr. ElBaradei is a puppet of the United States and helped the United States invade Iraq. In fact he actually defied the U.S. in refusing to support American claims of nuclear weapons in Iraq. ElBaradei represents a real chance for Egypt. He is a moderate, rational figure with international prestige and domestic popularity. Until last week, Egyptian state media considered him a credit to their country.

President Obama has shied away from democracy promotion. Reformers have even lamented his election. However, he has a chance to change this. The President can apply pressure to Mubarak, threaten to withdraw aid and do whatever it takes to demand a free and fair election. He has a chance to bring democracy to Egypt, to allow the country not to sink into Islamism and offer a true alternative. A democracy for Egypt by Egyptians. Mr. Obama has an unbelievable opportunity and if he helps bring democracy to Egypt, he truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Developed nations can’t agree on anything.

Developing nations can’t agree on anything.

Bangladesh wants money: a lot of it.

Also, watch this super scary video. It has a very Roland Emmerich feel to it.

Story here

It shouldn’t be if the UK is going to pull out of Afghanistan, but rather “when”. Gordon Brown is facing an election soon (one he and his party could place third in) and the calls are coming from all sides to pull British troops out of the Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how Brown balances domestic and international pressures. My guess is that he will promise some troops, though a small amount, preferably in the always ambivalent “non-combat roles”. Don’t even expect that to last long though. There won’t be any UK troops in Afghanistan by the time the US ’surge’ reaches its end, something that could spell doom for an already failing state.

From the Korean Central News Agency, Communist North Korea’s state-run “news” service, which in layman’s terms is their propaganda machine:

According to the KCNA, former US President Jimmy Carter praised North Korean Eternal President Kim Il Sung in a 1994 interview aired on public television. According to the agency, “He remembered President of the DPRK (North Korea) Kim Il Sung as a very outstanding great leader who was well versed in everything.”

Despite his death in 1994, it is still a North Korean custom to praise Kim Il Sung as much as possible. So this “news” article editorializes: “Having a very profound knowledge, Kim Il Sung knew almost everything, for example when a certain building was constructed and for what it was, he recalled, adding that he had a successful conversation with the President as he was simple and humble in his personality.”

The article concludes that Carter “expressed hope that the present U.S. administration would have a direct dialogue with the DPRK.”

I found a transcript of Carter’s PBS interview. Carter does praise Kim Il Sung for his hospitality and for treating him with respect and deference. However, the KCNA article omits this statement by Carter: “I had despised Kim Il Sung for 50 years. I was in a submarine in the Pacific during the Korean War, and many of my fellow servicemen were killed in that war, which I thought was precipitated unnecessarily by him. And so I had very serious doubts about him.”

The KCNA also fails to mention that Carter was not invited to the White House for a debriefing, proably an effort by Clinton to distance himself from Carter’s trip.

This is not usually a place where President receives much praise. However, it is important to give credit where credit is due. The President faced a daunting task. After eight years, Afghanistan remains a failed state. The previous administration largely ignored Afghanistan to focus on Iraq. The prospect of success remains dim as the Taliban is resurgent and Al Queda is returning.

The President, who came in on the promise to bring troops home, had to decide to send more. He enacted the same (surge) policy he opposed as Senator, realizing that the President’s job isn’t to pander to his base but to keep the country safe. This decision was probably not easy given the waning popularity of the Afghan war, especially amongst his core group of supporters.

Now Republicans have criticized the 18 month deadline imposed by the President. However, as stated in his speech as well as clarified by Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, the deadline is not a drop dead deadline and a withdrawal will only occur with permitting conditions on the ground.

My larger issue is not with the surge but rather potential of success in Afghanistan. If history has taught a lesson to the great powers on Afghanistan, it is that the country cannot be controlled. Now the U.S. mission is very different from the one pursued by the British and the Soviets but their failures should teach us that this is one country that cannot be brought under centralized control, and an attempt to do so would be quite foolish.

Several African countries have serious HIV problems, including Uganda which has a 5% infection rate (which is lower than several of its neighbors). But Uganda has come under fire for a proposed law to further criminalize homosexuality. According to the bill under consideration, which could (possibly) be considered part of an effort to reduce HIV infections in the country, calls for those convicted of having homosexual sex to be sentenced to life in prison. Also, those who are convicted of the aforementioned crime who are also HIV-positive are guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” and can be sentenced to death. Other crimes include failure to report homosexual activity, punishable by three years in prison, and advocating for homosexuality, which would be punishable by seven years in prison.

The United Kingdom and Canada swiftly denounced the move and added that if passed, Uganda’s international standing for supporting human rights would drastically decrease. As a Canadian official states, “If adopted, a Bill further criminalising homosexuality would constitute a significant step backwards for the protection of human rights in Uganda.”

African countries should take acts to reduce HIV rates, but this is just outrageous. HIV is certainly not a problem unique among homosexuals. All this proposed bill would do is further perceptions that Uganda does not respect basic human rights. The Ugandan government should listen the West’s objection to the law and act accordingly.

Twentieth century Libyan history can be divided into four major periods: Italian colonization from 1911-1943, a British caretaker government from 1943-1951, independent constitutional monarchical rule under King Sayyid Idris I from 1951-1969, and the current military dictatorship of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi from 1969 to the present. Such clearly-defined eras allow us to analyze the state of Libyan affairs in any given time period, which provides us with the opportunity to assess the extent to which colonialism is responsible for Libya’s current political, economic, and social ills. more

A few thoughts on President Obama’s decision to increase troop-presence in Afghanistan:

1. This was a good, but long-awaited move. Despite his objection to President Bush’s Iraqi surge in 2007, President Obama has recently realized that this strategy was effective and decided to implement it in Afghanistan. This is another case (just like his policy change in Honduras) of his demonstrated ability to realize when he is wrong and (quietly) change course.

2. The fact that he set a date for troop withdrawal in July of 2011 is shortsighted and may have been implemented to appease an increasingly-frustrated liberal anti-war base. We have no way of knowing the environment in Afghanistan in 2011. Therefore, setting a troop withdrawal date is a shortsighted move. While his base may be pleased to hear that the troops will come home, this strategy could well backfire if troops have to stay longer than July 2011.

3. Obama may have made the correct decision (sort of), but the fact that he waited this long, much to the chagrin of the military, was arrogant and irresponsible. President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; he should not postpone major military decisions without a good reason. Postponing meeting with his generals indicates that he was unwilling to hear his options, not that he was mulling his options to make an informed decision.

Overall, this could have been done a lot better. But at least he got something right.

Via the Politico:

• 30,000 more troops
• Asks for NATO step-up
• Promises to begin bringing forces back by Summer 2011.

Is it just me or does this sound exactly like GWB when he purposed the Iraq “Surge”? Complete with troops numbers, benchmarks (which Obama opposed in the Senate) and timetables.