« Obamamania Around the World | Main | Zimbabwe: A Lost Opportunity of American Leadership »
June 16, 2008
Response: Obamamania Around the World
I am glad my last post has generated so many responses and questions. I will devote this entry to answering those qustions. (LeeAnn my response to your question is in the comment section of the previous post.)
To Vicky: I do believe the Japanese political drama is strongly influenced by Obama's ascendency into international prominence and popularity. The drama's title is "Change," which I think is no coincidence, and the Prime Minister's young and handsome image, as well as his struggle with older politicians both expresses Obama's current image and appeal and foreshadows his future challenges if he does become president. Obama craze in Japan has been around for quite a while now, with the Japanese town named Obama attracting thousands of tourists simply because its name is the same as the Illinois Senator's. However, the drama's rating has declined in recent weeks, so I guess the Japanese's disdain for politics in their pop culture is trumping even Obama's appeal. But there is no question that Obama's influence has penetrated the hearts and minds of the Japanese culture like no other foreign politician before him.
To David: Thank you for your thoughtful response, especially the article on Obama, Japan. Fascinating. I think you are absolutely spot on on Obama's need to encircle himself with like-minded foreign advisers. I would also like to add that it is even more important that he has a group of like-minded military advisers, especially the people on his Joint Chief of Staff. He will be facing some tough military decisions with Iran, and given his lack of foreign policy experience, he is vulnerable to blindly accepting the advise of his military confidantes and delegating too much power away from himself.
As far as I know, Obama's FP advisors are former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski (under Carter) and Anthony Lake (under Clinton and likely pick for Secretary of State), former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice (Clinton), former navy secretary Richard Danzig, Joseph Cirincione (specializes in nuclear proliferation), Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and Richard Clarke. As we all know, prominent scholar, Samantha Power, quit because she called Hillary a monster during an interview. I have not heard Hagel being a member of Obama's foreign policy inner circle, but his background and experience, especially as a moderate Republican, can definitel add a new and much-appreciated perspective in Obama's team. I am actually rooting for Hagel to be the VP, thus completing the ultimate unity ticket.
Obama also has a formidable opponent in McCain who not only is more experienced in foreign policy but has a strong circle of advisors as well. I just found out that Randy Shriver and Mike Green are his two advisors on China and Japan respectively. While canvassing today, I talked to an African American man who strongly supports McCain because he thinks McCain can protect this country from attacks, especially by bin Laden, while Obama will only sit around, be a pansy and try to negotiate. This man says he cannot relate to Obama at all because he went to Ivy league schools and is an elite, while is a regular blue-collar worker. If Obama cannot convince his African American base that he is strong on foriegn policy, he will be in trouble this Fall. To prevent this scenario, I stand by my position that he should focus more on the economy in the the general election season.
Posted by Kevin Xu at June 16, 2008 11:53 PM
Comments
Kevin,
I'm very glad you decided to start this blog--it's already provoking a lot of great discussion, particularly concerning Obama's appeal around the world.
On that subject though, I'd like to rock the boat a bit by offering a contrarian view. Like you, I am far from a tepid Obama supporter, believing strongly that it is time for drastic change in the White House. American foreign policy is currently suffering from--more than anything--an image problem. And I strongly believe that with Senator Obama as President, there is the potential for changing that image.
That said, now let me shift gears and play devil's advocate. You correctly claim in a previous post that Obama winning the Democratic nomination has generated a great deal of excitement across the world. From France to Germany to Kenya, Obamamania is sweeping the planet. Those who have commented on this blog also seem to hold this view, which is not surprising given the media's incessant emphasis on Obama's global popularity in recent days.
However, this is only part of the story. Although Obama is indeed popular outside the United States, he is not popular everywhere. News articles describing Obama's foreign popularity have focused very heavily on Western Europe and Africa. Indeed, Obama is extraordinarily popular in places like France and Germany--whose populations (though, importantly, not their leaders) believe that simply talking nicer to Iran will make it stop enriching uranium. And he is of course popular in Africa, where he was born. As much as the New York Times might wish it to be so, however, Western Europe and Africa are not the whole world. A recent Pew Poll shows that McCain is just as popular as Obama (within the margin of error) in India, China, Pakistan, and much of South East Asia, and is MORE popular than Obama in several Middle Eastern countries, including--most notably--Jordan. Other polls have shown McCain performing even better compared to Obama, again in Asia and the Middle East.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25139381/
Why is it that many Asians and Middle Easterners prefer McCain to Obama? In the case of Asia, it seems that people (and governments) there are suspicious of Obama's seeming hostility to free trade. These countries have benefited greatly from economic openness over the past few decades and do not wish to see these gains erased with Obama as president. And in the case of the Middle East, it seems that many are legitimately worried about what a quick American pull-out from Iraq would mean for stability in the region. Also, Middle Easterners (specifically Arabs) may trust the U.S. little, but many trust Iran less. The fact that Iran's 40MW reactor at Arak is too large for research and too small for electricity generation worries Iraqis and Saudi Arabians just as much as it does Americans.
Besides foreign populations, foreign governments too are not all getting on the Obama bandwagon. Remember that only a few weeks ago David Miliband, Britain's Foreign Minister, publicly (and somewhat surprisingly) stated that he was "troubled" by Barack Obama's position on international trade. The French government, by way of FM Christine Lagarde, and the Chinese government, too, have indicated their displeasure with some of Obama's views.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11e05124-250d-11dd-a14a-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
My point in saying all this is not that I think McCain would be better for American foreign policy than Obama. I don't. And it is not to say that Obama isn't generating a great deal of foreign excitement. He is. Instead, I wish to point out that world opinion is not so one sided as the media sometimes suggests. Many people outside the United States have legitimate concerns about Obama--especially on trade policy and security issues--just as they have legitimate concerns about McCain.
As for my own views, I think Obama's anti-free trade rhetoric is simply political posturing that he'll abandon if he is elected president. And I think his willingness to pressure Iran through direct talks will actually help the U.S. position, not weaken it. But I could be wrong. These are legitimate concerns, and Obama will have to convince more than just France and Kenya that he is right on these issues if America is to experience the wholesale change in image that it so desperately needs.
Posted by: Michael Scott Robinson at June 17, 2008 05:47 PM