Friday 26 November 2010
Sunday 21 November 2010
Saturday 20 November 2010
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
For Immediate Release November 17, 2010
2010/1664
Remarks
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,
And U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague
After Their Meeting
November 17, 2010
Washington, D.C.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m delighted to welcome Foreign Secretary Hague back for his second visit to the State Department this year. Of course, we’ve been in close and seemingly constant contact since he became foreign secretary. We were together in New York yesterday for a session of the UN Security Council which William chaired and we’ll be together again in Lisbon for the NATO summit at the end of this week.
We have discussed a range of important issues – our shared mission in Afghanistan, the difficult choices that the United Kingdom has made in seeking to rebalance its government expenditures. We are very grateful for the strong commitment that the U.K. has given on so many security issues and particularly for their 10,000 troops, the brave young people serving in Afghanistan. And I appreciate too the trainers that are going to be committed to helping us expedite and improve the training of the Afghan security forces.
We discussed our shared priority of achieving a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The foreign secretary briefed me on his recent trip to the region, and I briefed him on our intensified efforts along several tracks to encourage the Israelis and Palestinians to resume direct negotiations.
I want to thank the secretary and the United Kingdom for announcing this week an additional 1 million pound contribution to the Independent Special Tribunal for Lebanon in 2011. Both the United States and the United Kingdom strongly support Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, and the work of this tribunal, which is intended to end impunity for political assassinations.
We continue to share a deep concern about Iran’s nuclear program. Again, the U.K. has shown great leadership in this area, and the foreign secretary and I are staying in close communication about the way forward. We have said many times we are committed to meeting with Iran to resume P-5+1 discussions. The EU High Representative Catherine Ashton has offered a date for such discussions to the Iranians, and we urge Iran to confirm this meeting so we can move forward.
The foreign secretary and I also discussed at some length the Balkans. We both are committed to helping the countries in the Balkans achieve full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community and we support a direct dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo. And I would like to again thank the U.K. for its leadership and the Security Council and its leadership in NATO and in the EU. There are so many important issues that we are working together on, and I cannot imagine having to face all of these issues without the close collaboration with the foreign secretary and the partnership between our two countries.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much indeed. It’s six months since we last stood here together when I was a new foreign secretary. I’d been the foreign secretary for about 36 hours at that moment, I think. This was the first place that I visited. And six months on, I particularly want to thank Secretary Clinton for the great friendship, for the excellent working relationship, for the constant discussions that we have on all of these issues. And we had an excellent dinner last night talking about so many of these things and have gone over so many more of these issues this morning.
And yesterday, indeed, we were together in New York at the Security Council situation – Security Council session that I chaired on the urgent situation in Sudan, and I want to thank the United States and thank Secretary Clinton for the immense interest shown in that. It is the prime focus of our presidency of the Security Council this month, and we’re pleased we can work so closely with the United States in our efforts on Sudan.
This afternoon, I’m going to deliver a speech at Georgetown University and for the first time since I was a student in 1982 (inaudible) particular location on the theme of international security in a networked world and on the unshakable partnership between our two countries. I will say in that speech that there will be no reduction in Britain’s global role under this government or in our commitment to working with the United States on the pressing security challenges that we face. As we saw very recently with the al-Qaida cargo plotting its plane flying to the United States, we have a very clear, long-term vision of Britain as an active global power and the closest ally of the United States – as Secretary Clinton herself has put it, the United States partner of choice in mitigating the threats of the 21st century. And we’re determined that our cooperation in diplomacy, defense, counterterrorism, and intelligence continue to be without parallel in the world.
We have indeed talked about the Middle East and the pressing need for Palestinians and Israelis to come back to direct talks to find a just and sustainable two-state solution. And I commend strongly the American Government’s tireless efforts in that area, to which we will continue to give full and active support.
We will be at the NATO summit in Lisbon addressing the latest developments and the plans for the future of Afghanistan, of course, adopting a new strategic concept there.
And on Iran, just a word. Our intense concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program remain. We worked together to put in place strong sanctions that have put real pressure on the government in Iran. We want to negotiate a peaceful resolution of these issues, but Iran’s leaders should know that our resolve is real and that our determination will not slacken on this issue.
It’s been very useful to discuss the Western Balkans, in particular the situation in Bosnia. Our progress remains elusive, and real international focus is needed.
So I repeat my thanks again to Secretary Clinton and this Administration and this Secretary of State. I’ve really seen in the last six months that Britain has a great friend, and it’s a huge pleasure to work together. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Andy Quinn, Reuters.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, good morning.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.
QUESTION: The Israelis are saying that they want the new U.S. security guarantees in writing, and I’m wondering, are you willing to do this if it would speed up any Israeli decision on reinstating the moratorium?
And for the foreign secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Osborne said today that Britain stands ready to support Ireland in its current financial crisis, and FT has referred to the possibility of billions of pounds in loans. Has your government had any specific discussions with Ireland, about that, what that help might entail? Are you, in fact, considering loans, and if so, at what level? And more broadly, the Irish crisis is being described as a struggle to save the EU. Do you agree with that assessment?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andy, I can’t get into details. I can only repeat what I have said, that we are in close touch with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. We’re working intensively to create the conditions for the resumption of negotiations that can lead to a two-state solution and a comprehensive peace, because we continue to believe strongly that it is only through negotiations between the parties themselves that all final status issues can be resolved and the conflict ended, because the current status quo is unacceptable.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: And on the questions you raised about Ireland, the chancellor exchequer has made the position on this clear. Ireland has not made a formal request for assistance. They are a sovereign nation. It is up to them whether to do so. As the chancellor has said, it is in our national interest to assist if we are asked to do so, but we’ll have to consider any such requests, if and when it arises.
And I wouldn’t go for the dramatic language you’re trying to lead me in about – into some saving the EU. Clearly there are difficulties in the euro zone, and it’s very much in Britain’s interest that there is stability in the euro zone, even though we are not members of the euro. And I’m sure we will surmount those difficulties. But the European Union, in any case is – it’s about much more than that. And so you’re using too dramatic language in your question, as you know. (Laughter.)
MODERATOR: And finally Mark Mardell of BBC.
QUESTION: Mark Mardell, BBC. Looking forward to Lisbon and Afghanistan, Secretary of State, is 2014 a hard deadline, which cannot flip, for handover? And a similar question to the foreign secretary: Can you see – can you envisage British troops being there longer than that date?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that I think that the Lisbon summit will be a demonstration of unity and affirmation of the strategy that we are pursuing. And our goal, which is the goal set forth first by President Karzai in his inaugural address, is to have full transition to Afghan security by 2014. We expect to begin the process of transition this next year, 2011, where we believe there are now areas and sufficiently trained security forces for the Afghans to assume control. They are, in effect, in control of areas now, and we’re in the midst of doing a review as to how this would be sequenced. But certainly the goal that will be endorsed at Lisbon is a transition that will conclude in 2014.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: I’m in complete accord with that. As you would expect, the U.K. and the U.S. work very closely together on this. There are great improvements taking place in the Afghan National Security Forces. They’re now 264,000 strong overall, and they will be more than 300,000 strong in the course of next year. I don't want to understate the challenges that remain. Of course, in making sure they have the expertise, and logistics, and engineering, and intelligence, these remain great challenges in building up the effectiveness of those armed forces. But they are challenges we can meet with sufficient dedication to, with sufficient commitment to training. And the United Kingdom has recently moved additional resources into training those forces.
And we can do that over this next four years. Four years is quite a long time. I was mentioning at a meeting earlier, that is the length of the entire First World War, in which great armies were assembled and great conflicts took place. And so we should be able to do that. We’ve said clearly what we said about 2015. The prime minister has made our position clear on that. But that is consistent with the objective of Afghans being able to lead and sustain their own security operations throughout Afghanistan by 2014.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you.
Thursday 18 November 2010
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release November 18, 2010
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT A MEETING ON THE NEW START TREATY
Roosevelt Room
We’ve taken the time to do this right. To ensure that the treaty got a fair hearing, we submitted to the Senate last spring. Because of the leadership of John Kerry and Dick Lugar, there have been 18 hearings on this subject. There have been multiple briefings. It has been fully and carefully vetted, and has the full endorsement of our nation’s military leadership. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hoss Cartwright is here and will confirm that this is in our national security interests.
My administration is also prepared to go the extra mile to ensure that our remaining stockpile and nuclear infrastructure is modernized -- which I know is a key concern of many around this table and also many on Capitol Hill. We’ve committed to invest $80 billion on the effort to modernize over the next decade. And based on our consultations with Senator Kyl, we’ve agreed to request an additional $4.1 billion over the next five years.
So the key point here is this is not about politics -– it’s about national security. This is not a matter that can be delayed. Every month that goes by without a treaty means that we are not able to verify what’s going on on the ground in Russia. And if we delay indefinitely, American leadership on nonproliferation and America’s national security will be weakened.
Now, as Senator Reid said yesterday, there is time on the Senate calendar to get this treaty ratified this year. So I’ve asked Vice President Biden to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done. It’s important to our national security to let this treaty go up for a vote. I’m confident that it’s the right thing to do. The people around this table think it’s the right thing to do.
I would welcome the press to query the leadership here, people who have been national security advisors, secretaries of state, and key advisors -- defense secretaries for Democratic and Republican administrations, and they will confirm that this is the right thing to do.
So we’ve got a lot on our plate during this lame duck session. I recognize that given the difficulties in the economy that there may be those, perhaps Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, who think this is not a top priority. I would not be emphasizing this and these folks would not have traveled all this way if we didn’t feel that this was absolutely important to get done now.
And so I’m looking forward to strong cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as exemplified by John Kerry and Dick Lugar, to get this done over the course of the next several weeks.
All right? Thank you very much.
Q Do you have the votes in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m confident that we should be able to get the votes. Keep in mind that every President since Ronald Reagan has presented a arms treaty with Russia and been able to get ratification. And for the most part, these treaties have been debated on the merits; the majority of them have passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be able to get that done this time as well.
END 10:42 A.M. EST
Obama congratulates Kikwete, Shein, SeifBy DAILY NEWS Reporter, 15th November 2010 @ 12:04 , Total hits: 224THE United States President, Mr Barack Obama, has congratulated President Jakaya Kikwete for being re-elected for the second term in office in the last month elections.
In a statement issued by the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam on Monday, President Obama says he looks forward to working with President Kikwete and members of the 10th Parliament in building on the long, fruitful partnership between the two nations to advance shared development goals and tackle the many global challenges ahead.
“I also wish to extend my congratulations to Zanzibar’s President Ali Mohamed Shein, First Vice-President Seif Sharif Hamad, the new unity government and most especially the Zanzibari people, who have made history by conducting a peaceful contest after years of strife,” says Mr Obama.
He has further commended the people of Tanzania on their continued commitment to a tradition of multiparty contests since it was introduced in the country in 1992.
“When we met at the White House in 2009, I said to President Kikwete the people of the United States support all Tanzanians in your efforts to institutionalise democratic, transparent governance, to realise the full potential of your Union and to ensure that the steps you have taken together toward a lasting peace and prosperity cannot be reversed,” he says.
Wednesday 17 November 2010
Friday 12 November 2010
Job of the week
Reporter - gas and power - Montel
We are currently seeking an experienced markets reporter on a permanent basis to boost our coverage of European gas and power markets. full details
*This is a sponsored placement. If you would like to see your job advert featured here, please contact Jonny on 01273 384293.
Press release of the week
Samsung Omnia 7 accessories and cases from Mobile Fun
Covers, screen protectors and other accessories are now available from Mobile Fun for the brand new Windows 7 Phone the Samsung Omnia 7 read more
*This is a sponsored placement. If you would like to see your press release featured here, please contact Adam on 01273 384291.
Advertisement
SAE Institute, the world's largest creative media institution has announced a new internationally recognised diploma training course for online journalists, PR and communications specialists.
The Digital Journalism Diploma certificate has been specially developed to help working journalists and communications professionals learn how to use new technologies and to deliver compelling stories across a variety of media platforms.
To help you discover how and why this course could benefit your career, we are holding a Digital Journalism Open Day at SAE Institute London on Saturday 27th November from 2.00 - 4.00 pm. You can expect two hours packed with information, seminars, demonstrations, equipment display and a chance to meet media professionals.
Click here to register and guarantee your place at this emerging media open day.
Latest jobs
Graduate wanted to join busy media PR team.... full details
We are seeking a highly motivated, energetic and ambitious business editor who will play an active role in developing further our flagship brand, Feedinfo News Service.... full details
Adfero, an online news agency, is looking for a freelance writer and translator who is fluent in Italian.... full details
This leading online news agency is looking for freelance writers who are fluent in Dutch. .... full details
Business-to-business publisher Incisive Media requires an experienced sub editor to work on some of its leading publications and websites.... full details
To see all jobs currently listed on Journalism.co.uk, please click here.
Thursday 11 November 2010
The EAST AFRICA COMMUNITY AT THE WORLD TRAVEL MARKET
By Babalola Abudu, PANA Correspondent
Lagos, Nigeria (PANA) - As 17 African countries out of the continent's 53 nation s this year celebrate half a century of political independence from colonial rule, many experts are expressing divergent views on whether the occasion is really worth celebrating.
The 17 countries include Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Togo, Gabon, Madagasc ar and Mali. Others are Mauritania, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Congo, Chad, Central African Republic, Camer oon, Burkina Faso and Benin Republic.
All the 17 countries gained independence the same year in 1960, but at differen t months of the year. So far, 11 countries have already marked the Golden Jubilee of their independence.
Those who believe the massive celebration is not worthwhile point to the huge so cio-political-economic challenges confronting the continent.
''As for political independence, most of Africa has achieved that. But as for p olitical independence on soft foundation of economic independence, we have not even started. So I think there is a lot to reflect on, not to celebrate,'' a Senior Research Fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) in Lagos, Charles Dokubo, told PANA.
''In terms of dealing with stability and development, most of these countries ha ve not carried out development in the real sense that affects all the facets of the society in Africa. So these are the problems we face, it i s not that these problems are not known but the policies and strategies to put them into fruition had not been pursued in such a way that will impact positively on the generality of the people in Africa,'' he added.
Of the 28 African countries that have hit and passed 50 years of self rule - rep resenting more than half of the 53 African countries - most of them did so this year. Thus, 2010 is considered as the ''African Year''.
But many experts agree with Dokubo that the occasion calls for reflection, rathe r than celebration.
According to Prof. Segun Odunuga of the Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye i n South-west Nigeria, most African countries remain politically fragile, several years after independence, as seen in pre and post elections wrangles, we ak economic base and defective institutions.
Also, he said, many political leaders have not behaved any different from the co lonial rulers they wrestled power from, with the sit-tight syndrome becoming the order of the day. The constitution which is suppose to serve as gui ding principle of governance are subverted to serve selfish interest and in most cases are manipulated to achieve selfish political ends, th ereby heating up the political system..
After several years of military intervention in Africa, starting with the first coup in Egypt in 1952, democracy started taking roots in most African countries in the early 1990s.
Democracy and development, many experts believe, go hand in hand, but the oppos ite seems to be the situation in Africa. Despite many years of democratic rule, poverty, hunger, corruption, conflicts, xenophobia and instabil ity, still remained big problems on the continent.
''The fact is that the democratic dividends we talk about in Africa are few and far between. I think most African countries are suffering from what I call democratic deficits, no dividends,'' Dokubo said.
Despite recent gains in many African countries in human and economic development , there has been a decline in political rights, personal safety and the rule of law, according to the 2010 Mo Ibrahim index, which measured the deli very of public goods and services to citizens by government in Africa.
The index, released last month, ranked the 53 African countries using 88 indicat ors across four main categories as proxies for the quality of the processes and outcomes of governance: safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity and human development. The 2010 index also includes new indicators in the following areas: HIV/AIDS gov ernance, water and sanitation provision, statistical capacity and gender.
''Overall, governance quality remains largely unchanged from previous years, wit h a continental average score of 49. However, this average masks large variation in performance across countries,'' the index shows.
Many Africans believed that given the continent's huge human and material resour ces, it is yet to attain its full potentials. However, many are quick to put the blame for the continent's present situation on many years of colonial ism, slavery and neo-colonialism.
But Dr. Mo Ibrahim, the Sudanese born billionaire and founder of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, disagrees.
In a paper he delivered in Accra, Ghana, recently, he said: ''For 50 years, we h ave been responsible for our destiny, but unfortunately, we have failed, my father's generation has failed, my generation has failed and the only hope fo r us now is the young generation.
''We are handing to you a really misery continent, it is in your hand to sort it out, but you cannot sort it out unless we know our shortcomings, where we went wrong,'' he said.
As the countries begin the journey into their centenary, Ibrahim's words may jus t be the much-needed tonic they need to ensure a better deal for Africa and its long suffering people in the next 50 years.
Lagos - 09/11/2010
Monday 8 November 2010
The Tanzania Stand at the wordl tarvel market today
Staged annually in London, World Travel Market - the premier global event for the travel industry - is a vibrant must attend four-day business-to-business event presenting a diverse range of destinations and industry sectors to UK and International travel professionals. It is a unique opportunity for the whole global travel trade to meet, network, negotiate and conduct business under one roof. By attending World Travel Market, participants efficiently, effectively and productively gain immediate competitive advantage for their business and stay abreast with the latest developments in the travel industry.
FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR DAVID LUBLIN
THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TOPIC: “ANALYSIS OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS”
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2010 AT 9:30 A.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. I know you had two very nice tours and you had a chance, an opportunity, to see people actually voting. And today, we’re going to have a briefing with Professor David Lublin, who is going to actually tell you what does this all mean.
David.
MR. LUBLIN: Well, that’s really a big question: What does it all mean? What it really means, obviously, is that the country is being returned to the situation that it has experienced for most of its legislature since World War II; namely, that the presidency is controlled by one party while at least one house of Congress – in this case the House of Representatives – is controlled by the other. As I’m sure you all know, the Republicans made historic gains and picked up – it looks like around 64-odd seats – in the House of Representatives, and they also made substantial gains in the Senate, though, currently it looks like to me that the Democrats, including Independent who caucus with them, will hold about 53 of the 100 Senate seats. So life is about to get more interesting in our Republic.
I guess I sort of want to take it from the perspective of questions rather than me going on about what we all read in the newspaper, and so are there any questions? I’m a professor, so I can rattle on endlessly if you’d like. But --
MODERATOR: Yeah. Please state your name and publication before you ask a question.
QUESTION: I would like to know within the Democratic Party if they are raining on Obama because of the loss. Thank you.
MR. LUBLIN: I think there’s been some criticism, of course, within in the Democratic Party of President Obama. There’s criticism on two fronts of him. First is messaging, that it wasn’t so much maybe the Democratic Party’s message, but that it was not communicated effectively or aggressively to the people, that the Administration was too defensive. There are some people also maybe from more of the left wing of the party who say that the Republicans were better able to get out their voters because they catered to their base versus the Democrats by trying to be more moderate and work with the Republicans left some Democrats feeling disenchanted. Now whether that analysis is true is not so clear.
QUESTION: What impact for foreign countries do you think this will have in terms of things like trade deals, like Obama Administration’s had done some progress in Korea and there’s a lot of interest in my neck of the woods about the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. Will that kind of grind to a halt or is that something you think the Republicans will move along?
MR. LUBLIN: I think it’s an interesting question. It’ll show whether the two parties, to a certain extent, are more interested in jockeying for a position for two years from now for the presidential elections where they want to work together. I would think actually the issue you raised is precisely the opportunity for them to work together, because while trade splits both of our major parties to an extent, the Republicans have basically been more pro-free trade. The question is: Are they more wanting to get this part of their agenda accomplished or do they want to deny the Obama Administration even minor victories.
It’ll be a bit interesting also because it might be something which the Democrats in Congress will be more resistant to because it provides temptation regarding debates over jobs with unemployment being very high, and also, in general, maybe some of the more moderate representatives who tended to favor free trade were defeated on that side of the aisle. So we’ll see, but I think it provides opportunities.
Certainly, President Obama, if he can like sell it to the people that it’s vital to create jobs, the question is whether his partisans in Congress will agree with him. Though, to a certain extent, maybe it matters less on – in the House, obviously, since the Republicans will have the majority there.
MODERATOR: Can we take the next question from New York, please.
QUESTION: What has happened in Washington, but what about what has happened in the capitals of the states? Now, some of the states have obtained now a Republican power in all three – at all three levels, governor, assembly, Senate. And there is going to be a redistricting. Now what recourse from out of state does exist in the U.S. system against gerrymandering, because that might be actually a change which is going to be much more prolonged for a long term in the future if gerrymandering is going to create districts that will turn next elections, starting 2012, into a one-way street?
MR. LUBLIN: Well, I’m a little worried mainly because redistricting is one of my favorite topics. My first book makes an excellent Christmas gift if you’d like to read more on the subject. You’re quite right, the Republicans may have set the stage for more long-term gains in the sense that in our system, we allow each state to draw the congressional districts, and unlike in most other democracies that use the system like Canada and Australia or the United Kingdom, we do not have them drawn by neutral non-partisan bodies except for in the case of Iowa.
Increasingly, some states have tried to set up bipartisan or neutral commissions. California passed an initiative that will do that, but that will work to the disadvantage of the Democrats. And Republicans have now gained control of redistricting in a large portion of the country, though not in a portion containing a majority of the seats. It will be interesting to see to what extent they’re able to press their advantage.
On the counter poise perhaps to our system when it comes to gerrymandering is this, that we have more legal remedies against abuse of the power as a result. So that, first of all, our congressional districts must be drawn incredibly equal. You can’t like put too few Republicans in districts and too few Democrats because the other party will sue and go to court and win.
The other thing is we have Voting Rights Act which is a very strong and muscular protection of minority representation designed to protect, particularly African American and Latino districts where voters can elect candidates they prefer, but also helping at times American Indians and other minorities, and so people are very cognizant of that.
The other thing is that perhaps helps keep things a bit more interesting is that despite the partisan interest in the process, you have to remember our parties are large and often unruly amalgamations of interests, including personal interests, and so what may be to a party’s advantage is not always to the advantage of every single member of its caucus who may be less willing to support their party’s plan. But in general, yes, you’re absolutely right this could provide huge, long-term dividends for the Republican Party.
The other thing I’d say, though, is that at the end of the day, it’s hard to gerrymander out the will of the people fully. I commend to you the experience, of say, Ireland where Fine Gael once tried to redistrict the Dail to essentially help it get reelected and Fianna Fail, the opposition, ended up winning a bigger landslide. It can be hard to predict what the voters want to do. Several of the plans that were gerrymandered for one party or the other at the beginning of this decade clearly have fallen apart for one or even both parties by the end of the decade. And I think that’s good, obviously, because unlike Bertolt Brech, we don’t want – as Bertolt Brecht said, where governments select the people and dissolve the people rather than vice-a-versa.
MODERATOR: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Which path do you think that President Obama will take, the path that took President Clinton after losing the – his first midterm elections or the path that took Ronald Reagan after losing again his mid-term elections?
MR. LUBLIN: I think he’ll do a bit of in between. I think the Democratic Party in Congress is noticeably more liberal which, of course, in American-speak means more left wing rather than right wing, as it does in many countries, and so as a result, he needs to sort of support his party’s base. I think in some ways, this will provide opportunities as well as dangers for President Obama. It will be much harder for him to get any part of his agenda through Congress, but it will also provide opportunities to draw distinctions with the Republicans. So if they pass legislation that he doesn’t like, he can veto it and force them to negotiate with him. I think he’ll (inaudible) with President Clinton in the sense that sometimes clash can be very good for presidents with Congress, particularly because they have the bigger microphone.
And the one thing I’d point out – and I think the Republicans are a bit more aware, which may mean they’re a bit smarter about this than Newt Gingrich this time; we’ll see how it plays out – but that they’re sort of aware that they are not necessarily that popular right now. I mean, my understanding is that polls show that the incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner is actually less popular than the outgoing speaker of the House. So it’s not necessarily going to be the case that making the Republican leadership the face of the Republican Party is going to help them that much and it’s – they’re going to have to – however, they’re also going to have to cater to a lot of their new members who want to push their agenda.
I think you’re going to see a lot of clash, you’re going to see a fair amount of gridlock, but at times you’ll also maybe see the parties strategically working together because ultimately the American people want to see their federal government getting the people’s business done and parties that look simply obstructionist, be they the Democrats or the Republicans, can eventually pay at the polls.
QUESTION: Do you think that healthcare reforms of Obama Administration are under threat and such as they have reform, could it be repealed?
MR. LUBLIN: This is where I think things become interesting is because I saw several members of the Republicans saying they vowed to repeal “Obama Care,” as they call it and that they would not compromise. Their problem will be that our entire system of government is set up to force compromise. We have 50 federal states, two separate branches of the legislature, our President who can wield the veto – President Obama will certainly veto any attempt to repeal his signal achievement. So I think they may try, but they’re not going to get very far. The Republicans may use that to position themselves to go to the people in 2012 and say, “We need to have the presidency to accomplish the agenda you elected us.” And President Obama will sort of say, “You need to return the Democrats to power to accomplish the agenda you elected us to do, too.” So I think there’s going to be a fair amount of posturing, but I’m sure this is new to you, because no politician in your country has ever posed or positioned on anything, right?
QUESTION: Just to add to Sebastian’s (ph) question, will the healthcare issue further polarize American voters? Will it lead to divisiveness?
MR. LUBLIN: Divisiveness is often sort of seen as a bad thing in politics, and certainly, if it leads to violence, it’s not a good thing. But it also is necessary for healthy debate. I mean, one thing that gets frustrating to me sometimes is you sort of interview voters and they want people just to solve the problems in the best interest of everyone. But of course, that’s not so easy and different people have different answers. And actually, having a good debate, particularly in parliamentary systems like in India, is seen as really important; that if the BJP never opposed congress, India wouldn’t be known for such a vibrant democracy. I’m sure that congress would like it much more if the BJP just said, “Oh, yes, you’re doing everything absolutely right.” But they also might die of shock if they did that. Similarly, in our country it’s necessary to have that good debate. Often also we get to more centrist policies or improved policies by critiquing the things that people don’t like in them. So I mean, ultimately, the Republicans had a large impact on healthcare reform even though they didn’t vote for it.
QUESTION: My question is: How the elections will impact on legislative business either in the House or in the Senate and expanding for years? And number two, the one who is planned, like the reconstruction approach energy zone bill expanding in the Senate and the one which is planned like $2 billion defense assistance to Pakistan in coming five years?
MR. LUBLIN: Wow. That’s a lot of issues. I think, when it comes to foreign policy, the President remains dominant, because he remains Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It’s very hard for the Congress to oppose requests for appropriations that are deemed in the national interest. In terms of aid to Pakistan, I think that will be based on what the President is able to convince the Congress is in the national interest. I mean, I think at this point, though, there has also been tremendous sympathy for your country now due to the enormous floods which have made life difficult for so many people living there and is shared by many people around the world. It probably makes people more sympathetic to more aid to Pakistan, particularly that would reach the people.
MODERATOR: All the way in the back.
QUESTION: Do you see the election results impacting on the foreign policy of the U.S. vis-à-vis Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?
MR. LUBLIN: Not especially, because, as I said, the President leads on foreign policy. Also, I just don’t think the area of dispute between the Administration and the Republicans is necessarily as great on those issues. The war in Iraq is ultimately winding down and the American Government is trying to turn the country back over to the Iraqis. Regardless of the administration, it’s going to remain in the American interest to promote a stable democratic government in Iraq. Similarly, in Afghanistan, the President seems committed. This is something the Republicans support by and large. Obviously, American foreign policy is always being reevaluated, but America has continuing interests regardless of which party is in power.
We – I mean, if I can make an analogy, perhaps, to like our relations with the United Kingdom, it’s not like we have good relations when the Republicans are in power and the bad relations when the Democrats are in power or vice versa. Our emphasis on a good relationship, for example, with one of our closest allies doesn’t change just because one of our parties in power changes. Also, to a certain extent, the major debate over Iraq was whether we should stay or go. That debate seems to be coming to an end. In Afghanistan, the President may actually face more critics from his own party who think we should go.
MODERATOR: Can we go to New York, please? New York, go ahead.
QUESTION: I just wonder, do you see any chance for any major piece of legislation to move forward in this congress? And also, what’s your take on a success or failure of Tea Party movement in this election?
MR. LUBLIN: Let’s take the second question first, because that’s the easier one. I think the Tea groups had some real success, but they also showed the limits of their success. The Tea Party movement always reminds me of the old Chinese saying that, “He who rides a tiger can find it difficult to dismount.” In other words, the Republicans have ridden the enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement, but they don’t necessarily quite know where it’s going to take them. And in some cases, it hasn’t taken them to good places.
In this election, the Republicans probably would have won control of the Senate but for the Tea Party movement. If you look at Christine O’Donnell defeating Representative Castle in Delaware, Representative Castle surely would have taken that seat for his party. Had the Republicans nominated, say, the one representative who, at the time, was a Republican in Nevada instead of Sharron Angle, I think there’s little question but that Harry Reid would not be returning to Washington. And so you don’t necessarily see that helping them and necessarily take all seats.
And the other question is: To what extent is it going to make it harder for the Republicans to sort of compromise? This is sort of increasingly a problem for both of our parties, that because we nominate people through primary elections – and which essentially anyone who affiliates with that party – and that’s not very difficult. It’s not like in some countries where you have to have a card and pay dues. It’s pretty much you show up or you take a box saying you’re affiliated, vote for that party. And increasingly, what that means, because our voters are so well sorted into the two parties is that the people who choose Republican nominees are very conservative and the people who choose Democratic nominees are very liberal.
In terms of getting legislation through Congress, it makes it more difficult because the trend of getting legislation through Congress – the trend in our congressional parties, that is, has been the same. That if you look at who was defeated in this election, moderate Democrats were particularly the people who lost. People who are members of what we call the “blue dog” caucus, who are the more conservative Democrats, lost at much higher rates than people who are members of the progressive, which is the most left-wing caucus.
So the Democrats are now more homogonously liberal, and I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that this election made the Republicans more moderate either. So you’re going to see a lot of clash. I think you may see a lot of fire and brimstone. Ultimately, some studies by political scientists, such as those by David Mayhew, suggest that there’s little evidence that divided government produces less important legislation than united government. Over the next two years, the country will likely be confronted with major challenges that require a governmental response, and the government will need to respond.
QUESTION: There is a widely held perception in the Middle East that there is a bias towards Israel when it comes to Israel-Palestinian situation, and it’s reinforced by such things as Israel continuing to build settlements while it’s negotiating with the Mahmoud Abbas government. Do you agree that there is a bias? And what impact will this bias have on a two-state solution? Thank you.
MR. LUBLIN: I guess that’s a complicated question. First, I would have to say in the Arab world, there’s a strong simply self-interest in saying there’s a bias, whether or not there is, because it’s a way to encourage the United States to place more pressure on Israel, which is, after all, what the Arab world would like to see. So what you see all the time in politics in this country, where politicians of both stripes say the media is unfair, which basically means they’re not saying what we would like them to say.
In terms of, I mean, the settlements, I mean, ultimately, I don’t think the fact that Israel, a third power, is constructing settlements, which is against our long-term stated wishes, is an evidence of bias on the part of the United States. It’s the evidence that Israel is continuing a policy that it wants to do, against the will not just of the – against the will of the United States. I think there are strong relations between Israel and this country, which go well beyond the influence of its – this country’s relatively small Jewish population. If anything, I think, actually, the elections will probably strengthen efforts to support Israel in this country because a lot of the conservative Republican Party is particularly supportive of Israel.
Having said that, I think we’ll – the United States’s interests there remain the same. We’d very much like to see a two-state solution established that provides more stability and peace in the Middle East, though I think increasingly, people are recognizing that Nirvana will not arrive in the Middle East the day that actually finally happens, that the Middle East faces a lot of other very long-term problems, for which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a useful distraction for the governments of the region.
MODERATOR: All the way in the back.
QUESTION: I have two questions. The first one is, we cannot close our eyes about the switch voters that switched their votes from Democrat to Republican, so do you think that if Obama is going to run for the second term in 2012, which issues should he put more attention? So – because I don’t know, what do you think about the switch from the Democrat to the Republican? Is that because of some unpopular legislation or maybe just the Obama care? Thank you.
MR. LUBLIN: I think you have to focus on a couple things in terms of the changing electorate and that because our midterm elections do not include presidential elections, the turnout is significantly lower than in presidential elections. And so midterm elections in particular are more about who can get their voters to the polls. Republicans were really mad this year. They showed up in the polls in larger numbers than Democrats, who showed up in rather average numbers. The presidential electorate will be more expanded, which you tend to think will at least provide some trend to the Democrats, all things being equal.
Having said that, at the same time, President Obama will clearly be thinking about two years from now and how to revitalize not just his own chances for reelection, but his party’s. My own opinion is that, first of all, the economy remains critical. A lot of Americans are unhappy because the economy remains not as strong as they would like. In particular, as I think we all know, employment lags behind economic recovery. And even if it’s starting to happen, it’s happening slowly, and too slowly to make a dent in our national unemployment rates. That relates to the well being of a lot of people. It’s well and good to sort of – for President Obama to say, hey, we saved the world financial system., the TARP program did not, in fact, cost voters any money, but until voters see an improvement in their lives, they’re not going to be happy people. And so I think that’s sort of the main focus.
I think repealing Obama care would actually be directly against the President’s interests because he would be repealing the main signal achievement that pleases his own party, and why should voters of his own party go to vote him back into office to do the Republican agenda? They can just vote for Republicans to do that. I think he’ll need to show contrasts where he thinks that will benefit him and his party and – but also a willingness to compromise to sort of present to people that, hey, we’re the adults; they’re the children.
MODERATOR: Right there.
QUESTION: Will it be possible to reduce the deficit as the Republicans promised without cutting military budget, which they seem not to support?
MR. LUBLIN: I think – I really like what Joe Scarborough, a conservative commentator, said about this election, that it was a debate between those who want low-fat chocolate cake and no-fat ice cream. Okay, the Democrats want to spend endlessly without there being consequences. The Republicans want to cut spending and cut your taxes, which seems to have the same consequences as spending without raising taxes. So I think there’s clearly going to be compromise, and if there, only because a budget has to be passed. And what you will see is the Republicans attempting to cut particularly discretionary spending, and you’ll see the Administration probably working to do some of that as well, but trying to pick its battles over what it fights to save and what it fights not to save and where it thinks it’s worthwhile.
So Social Security will probably be a flashpoint, if the Republicans try and revise that. It will be more interesting to see how other discretionary spending survives, though. For example, President Obama was elected on a platform of increasing spending on public transportation. There’s not much of a constituency for that in the House Republican Party that was elected primarily not from urban areas, so one could imagine that it will be hard to get that sort of spending through the House of Representatives.
MODERATOR: People who haven’t – right there. No, no. No, there.
QUESTION: I want to know what are really the chances for Barack Obama to change the trend by 2012, knowing that they are sharing now the House and the Senate. What will be his chances, just to change completely the trend and then make it to 2012?
MR. LUBLIN: We’ll have to see on that, but what I would point out is that Barack Obama is actually more popular than Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton was after midterm elections that hurt both of them and they both got reelected. So, in contrast the first President Bush was more popular and did not get reelected. What matters is what happens over the next two years. Obviously, the political game has changed, but the rules remain the same. The voters will get to decide that in two years, and that will depend on what the people think. But I certainly would not count out President Barack Obama at all. He’s also – this is a smart guy. I mean, he was not picked to be elected president from the start. And he learns quickly, particularly from his mistakes. So we’ll see what he does.
At the same time, to the extent that he was elected to change the culture in Washington, that’s going to be hard for him to do. But every politician since the country was founded, I think, was elected to change politics in Washington. It’s kind of hard for those of us who are from Washington to hear how awful we are all the time. But on the one hand, they don’t seem to be able to do that and we’ll have to see what happens. But Barack Obama could win; he could also lose. A friend of mine, though, pointed out that actually the people who lose in some ways are lucky because most – the second term of most two-term presidencies as of late has not been so hot. So we’ll have to see what happens.
MODREATOR: Right here. Yeah.
QUESTION: One of the arguments among the Tea Party activists is the government to reduce its size. Is it possible for Obama to do so?
MR. LUBLIN: I think the size is in terms of mainly federal spending. There are some government departments they particularly don’t like, probably. We’ll have to see what they want to do and how they want to do it. It’s really going to depend. Also, I don’t know that Barack Obama views his ability to get reelected as necessarily depending wholly on that. I mean, honestly, I think the – some people are very concerned about the deficit. I think the hard times make it worse in the sense of people say I have to balance my budget and I’m not making more money, I’m making less money, why can’t the federal government do it? There’s also huge debates among economists as to whether cutting spending, as has been advocated by some, or spending more is really the right response to the economic crisis. And I think that’s ultimately a policy judgment.
QUESTION: After the elections, how do you see the future of the Russian-American relations, the reset, and especially if you could talk about the future of the START agreement. Do you think they will take out the voting in the Senate during the lame duck session, or do you think it will be possible for the new Senate to decide the future of this agreement?
MR. LUBLIN: It’ll be interesting to see. I would think if you wanted to get it ratified, now would be the time because Republicans have historically been more suspicious of tightening relations with Russia in some ways, though on the other hand past Republican presidents felt in some ways close to Russia and the interests. So we’d have to see on that. But ultimately, the Democrats cannot do it alone because treaty ratification takes two-thirds votes and they didn’t have that even in the old Senate, let alone the new Senate. The question will be to what extent can the President convince senators it’s in the interest of the United States to ratify the treaty.
I think sort of we’ve come a long way from both the Cold War and the post Cold War with Russia. There was automatic suspicion during the Cold War. After the end of the Cold War, there was sort of this euphoric view that we were all going to be one happy world and get along, and now I think the view is Russia has interests, we have interests, we need to find the commonalities and try to work together, and also though be aware of their interests as well because we can’t completely – we certainly do not expect the Russian Government to ignore its interests, though you know there’s often frustration on both sides.
I think there remains a concern, though how well expressed it will be I don’t know, on the decline of the quality of democracy in Russia though, which served as a basis for a lot of the euphoria in the post Cold War era.
MODERATOR: Someone who hasn’t asked a question yet.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MODERATOR: She did? Okay. (Laughter.) Oh, you did? Okay, then we’ll go (inaudible). No, no, wait. Go ahead. Just wait for the microphone. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay, Obama promised the Iraqis on the world actually with some responsible withdrawal from Iraq. He said a responsible withdrawal, which means that everything, I mean, will be in somehow okay, he will put the steps to some peaceful or calm situation in Iraq. What’s your opinion now about the situation in Iraq? And it will be a responsible withdrawal from Iraq concerning the situation? I mean that we don’t have even army in Iraq, we don’t have an air forces, we don’t have these heavy tools of an army. So it will be responsible decision from Obama to withdraw from Iraq?
MR. LUBLIN: I mean, I think ultimately that’s a question you’re better posed to answer than myself. I guess I would be shocked if any president said, “I’m favoring an irresponsible withdrawal from Iraq.” (Laughter.) Okay? Or, “We’re basically expecting it to fall apart the minute we leave.” I mean, I would not be supportive of the Iraqi Government or of American efforts.
At some point, the withdrawal actually serves a useful purpose for the Iraqi Government in that it sort of forces the very diverse forces within Iraq to sort of have what in the United States we increasingly call a “make it work moment,” that the United States is no longer going to be there to sort of prop things up quite so much, that ultimately the Iraqi Government is going to have to find ways to incorporate the diverse elements and territories of Iraq into a government that can gain support. Hopefully, over time it will take root that the way to change government in Iraq is by voting, not so much by violence.
I guess from the perspective of an American, the thing that’s most disappointing about the Iraq situation is the willingness of Iraqis to perpetrate violence on other Iraqis to accomplish their goals. And regardless of what one thinks about the invasion of your country, I think most Americans at least feel reasonably proud that as we’re leaving we’ve tried to give Iraqis the opportunity to choose their own government and to select their own leaders, which is the way we tend to believe it should be done.
QUESTION: What about (inaudible) the army? I mean, they didn’t speak about this issue. I mean, we don’t have army, we don’t have air forces. Why the American are fear that Iraq have a real army with an air forces, with heavy tools of an army?
MR. LUBLIN: I mean, I think there have actually been efforts to develop and train Iraqis in these areas. Ultimately, Iraq will succeed not – live or die not so much on whether or not it has an army and strong security forces, but on sort of the consent of its people. Obviously, you need to have some of that both to fight the insurgents and to protect Iraq from unfriendly powers. But do we really want to go back to an Iraq where the government retains power based strictly on fear? Which is why so many governments need so many internal security forces. We certainly have things like the FBI and the CIA in this country to protect us from foreign and domestic powers, but the strength of the American Government and people rests on that. They are not the reason the government stays in power.
MODERATOR: Do you want to ask one? Right here.
QUESTION: There is a consensus that --
MODERATOR: Your name, please?
QUESTION: It’s Sebastian Lacunza from Argentina, Ambito Financiero newspaper. There is a consensus that the economy was the key point in the election, but why people or many people didn’t blame on Republicans for such key points as the deficit, the huge spendings, and other things that are crucial for their life, and they left the government just two years ago?
MR. LUBLIN: Two thoughts very quickly. One, boy, the Democrats would like to know the answer to that question. Okay? (Laughter.) Right? Secondly, Americans are demanding people. They want it and they want it now. So they wanted a better economy more quickly. Instead, we’re in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression and it’s really tough. And so people are dissatisfied.
QUESTION: What do you think of the argument that --
QUESTION: What do you think of the argument that this result isn’t really a good thing for Obama, and would you be willing to make a call on how you think it will go for him? Will this be beneficial to him in the long run that he didn’t have full control and keep pushing through his agenda?
MR. LUBLIN: I don’t know if leading your party to historic losses will even be considered to your long-term benefit, but maybe it helped Bill Clinton appear more moderate between the extreme right of the Republicans and the Democrats. We’ll have to see. I think ultimately he would certainly like to lead his party back into control, or at least a better position in two years.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. LUBLIN: To be honest, I think it’s too early to say. And while I could sort of irresponsibly give you some answer – and I won’t be here in two years to have you say wait, you said this and that has nothing to do with reality. It’s the great advantage of being a pundit. I honestly don’t really have a prediction on that.
QUESTION: A few days ago back in Miami, a pollster told us – he didn’t actually literally say that but implied, suggested that the Tea Party’s got really nothing to do with the state of economy. He said that the Tea Party was founded like one month after President Obama was inaugurated. And how do you see that?
MR. LUBLIN: Well, I mean, I think there is some genuine reaction against his agenda by some people that have been very nervous and certainly right-wing commentators have done their best to stir it up. The question will be can the Republicans recovery credibility on some of these issues both with the Tea group voters and with the public, because after all, since the large deficits began during the Republican era and certainly got larger as we got to the end of the Bush presidency and certainly during the Obama presidency, the question is: Are the Republicans going to be able to have a meaningful impact on this, since in the past their interest in deficits has been somewhat lower?
But in some ways, I think it’s going to be very important for them to show some genuine progress on this, both to show that they matter and also because their own voters will become disillusioned if they’re unable to have an impact. Their problem is, in some ways, that their voters expect them to change everything very quickly, too, and it’s going to be hard for them to accomplish that goal.
MODERATOR: One last question.
QUESTION: You said that in Afghanistan, President may face more criticism from his own party that we should go. Could you elaborate it further? And number two, do you there are prospects to withdraw from Afghanistan by middle of next year?
MR. LUBLIN: I don’t think I’m in a position to assess the second question, so I won’t. I’m not an expert on the military situation in Afghanistan. I think certainly some Democrats would really like it if we did.
On the first question, there’s more criticism among the President – essentially, some Democrats have reacted much like some Republicans reacted to their losses, that the problem is that we didn’t appeal to our base enough, essentially, is what they said. We did not appeal to left Democrats and give them a reason to go vote for the people. We didn’t – they’d say to the Congress, “We didn’t pass – we didn’t end ‘don’t ask; don’t tell’ for gays in the military. We didn’t pass immigration reform. We did not pass cap and trade. Of course people didn’t come and vote for us.” So in some ways, that’s sort of a lot of the criticism. The question will be that the more they see of what the Republican leadership wants, maybe they’ll have a chance to fall in love with Barack Obama again or we’ll have to see if he faces a challenge from the left wing of his own party, which is a possibility.
But on the other hand, most commentators on election night did not think this would necessarily happen. And I think President Obama actually has a very strong base within the party. And so people who might actually have a shot at winning the presidency don’t necessarily want to take on a fruitless task. Though, someone might do it just to make a point. Also, if you want to get elected president, do you really want to alienate the voters within your party who like him? Because after all, if not in two years, in six years there’s going to be another opportunity.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.
MR. LUBLIN: Thank you.
