Pakistan Govt. committed to live up to public aspirations: Gilani/Obama's bipartisan moment on foreign policy/Iran ready to restart nuclear talks with

Doyle McManus:
Obama's bipartisan moment on foreign policy

For now at least, Republicans have found little to disagree with in his handling of foreign policy.
Doyle McManus
April 5, 2009
Don't look now, but the United States is experiencing something unusual in its recent history: a moment of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy.

Over the last month, President Obama has launched initiatives in areas that were flash points of contention only a year ago: winding down the war in Iraq, escalating the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, negotiating with Iran, renewing efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and seeking warmer relations with Russia and China.

All those issues drew heated debate in the 2008 presidential campaign. But this spring, the prevailing Republican response to Obama's announcements has been silence -- even support.

Last year, John McCain called Obama too naive to be commander in chief. Last week, McCain expressed support for Obama's decision to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, saying he was "confident that it can and will work."

Equally remarkable, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed that the new administration was dumping the Bush-era label of a "global war on terror" and sent super-envoy Richard C. Holbrooke to chat up Iran's deputy foreign minister, the response from the once-lusty right was almost imperceptible.

Some critics are still out there, of course. Former Vice President Dick Cheney charged that Obama's policies were making the nation vulnerable to terrorists, and paleoconservative scold John R. Bolton accused Clinton of "bumper sticker diplomacy." But neither Cheney nor Bolton found any echoes in the ranks of practicing politicians.

Why the sudden reticence on the part of conservatives who, only a year ago, delighted in shellacking Obama as soft on national security?

Part of it is simple distraction. The economic crisis, the federal budget and the battle over healthcare have crowded foreign policy off center stage, at least for a while. On those domestic issues, old-fashioned partisanship is alive and well.

Another factor is Republican exhaustion on foreign policy. The traumas of the Bush administration left them a legacy that needs to be refreshed and (as the political consultants say) rebranded -- but they haven't had time to do that yet. In a recession, they know they need to win voters back on home economics first.

But the biggest reason for bipartisan comity is that there isn't all that much for the Republicans to take issue with. Obama, the presidential candidate with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, has turned out to be a determined centrist when it comes to foreign policy.

"There is a rough bipartisan consensus in American foreign policy, and Barack Obama is in it," one of the original neoconservatives who promoted the idea of invading Iraq, Robert Kagan, told me.

In Iraq, Obama's first action once in office was to soften what had been the central promise of his campaign: withdrawal within 16 months. He now says he hopes to withdraw two-thirds of the troops in 18 months, but even that will depend on how things look then. In Afghanistan, Obama agreed to his generals' request for troops to launch a smaller version of the manpower-heavy counterinsurgency strategy that worked in Baghdad.

Obama's choices for top foreign policy positions reassured conservatives too. Clinton was the most hawkish Democratic presidential candidate; national security advisor James L. Jones Jr., a retired Marine general, had served as a McCain advisor; and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was, of course, a holdover from the Bush administration.

But this wasn't a postelection conversion. Obama began moving squarely into the center during the campaign, when he fended off conservative attacks by promising that his withdrawal from Iraq would be "responsible" and that he would do "everything" to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Despite his multinational upbringing, Obama's political agenda has always been primarily domestic. He didn't have developed positions on many foreign policy issues until he arrived in the Senate in 2004 -- and promptly recruited a conservative Republican apostle of bipartisanship, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, as a mentor. For a president whose central goal is an ambitious and, yes, liberal reshaping of the federal government's domestic role, disarming the opposition on foreign policy serves a useful purpose.

But that bipartisan centrism has not been universally acclaimed. A vocal challenge on foreign policy has risen from the leftmost wing of his own party, where leaders of the antiwar movement have reacted to his actions with distress. To them -- including some of Obama's staunchest supporters during the campaign -- the escalation in Afghanistan looks distressingly like the "surge" of troops into Iraq that Obama joined them in opposing only two years ago.

Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey called Obama's decision to keep some troops in Iraq longer than the promised 16 months "unacceptable," saying Iraqis would perceive the military presence as "an enduring occupation force." Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern said Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan would lead to a "war without end."

But they were minority voices. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who led efforts to cut off funding for Bush's Iraq war, shows no inclination to legislate limits on her own president.

This bipartisanship moment won't last forever. Conservatives will regain their footing once they catch their breath. And once Obama's diplomacy runs into trouble, as it almost inevitably will somewhere in the world, they will have more to criticize.

Obama has already postponed a difficult decision until this fall, when his generals want him to approve an additional 10,000 troops for Afghanistan. If Iraq's fragile semi-peace collapses, he'll face another tough choice: whether to halt the U.S. withdrawal. If nuclear talks with Iran don't produce quick results, he'll have to decide whether to declare his own diplomacy a failure.

Last week, McCain warned Obama that his biggest trouble was likely to come from the left. With no apparent irony, he urged the president to consult closely with the Democratic leadership in Congress "to prevent ... a resurgence of antiwar activity."

The Arizona senator offered Obama an offhand but chilling warning from history. Obama's decision to postpone his decision on the additional 10,000 troops for Afghanistan, McCain warned, smacked of "Lyndon Johnson-style incrementalism."

Only two months in office, and Obama already faces Johnson's dilemma: a war policy that divides his own party. Maybe bipartisanship isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Cont...
Photo:Sebastien Bozon / AFP/Getty Images
Hillary Rodham Clinton, second from left, President Obama and other world leaders meet in Strasbourg. He won only limited support for his Afghan strategy, but “he’s getting a lot more than Bush could have gotten,” one analyst said.
The U.S. sought troops to fight the Taliban, but Obama still calls the commitment 'a strong down payment' on the Afghan mission.
By Henry Chu
April 5, 2009
Reporting from Strasbourg, France -- NATO announced Saturday that it would send about 5,000 additional troops and trainers to Afghanistan, a boost that President Obama hailed as "a strong down payment on the future of our mission" there, but one that failed to include the combat forces Washington had sought.

The commitment came at the conclusion of Obama's first summit of the most powerful military alliance in the world, an event marked by pageantry and protest here on the border between France and Germany.

The American leader had hoped to parlay his immense popularity in Europe into stronger promises of military support for the Afghan war, which has drawn increasing criticism on the continent. Throughout Obama's visit, which started in London, European leaders have jockeyed for position next to him and screaming crowds have gathered for a glimpse of the president and the first lady.

But even as European leaders emphasized the importance of the Afghanistan mission, the boost announced Saturday pales in size next to the 21,000 additional U.S. troops that Obama has pledged to send to help fight the resurgent Taliban.

The new NATO troops will include 3,000 soldiers on temporary assignment to assist in securing national elections scheduled for August. The remainder will provide training for the Afghan army, to encourage its transformation from a ragtag band into a professional, well-equipped military.

Conspicuously absent are the extra combat troops that the U.S. had requested, an indication of how deeply divided many NATO countries remain about the war effort and their role in it.

Nonetheless, the president portrayed the commitment as a victory in his campaign to refocus efforts on stabilizing and building Afghanistan after the politically and financially ruinous diversion of the Iraq war.

"Keep in mind it was only just a week ago that we announced this new approach. . . . We've started to match real resources to achieve our goals," Obama said. More resources were still necessary, but "these commitments of troops, trainers and civilians represent a strong down payment on the future of our mission in Afghanistan and on the future of NATO."

Obama's comments came as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrated its 60th anniversary, welcomed two more countries into the fold and named its next secretary-general, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose candidacy had generated strong opposition from Turkey, the alliance's only predominantly Muslim member nation.

But all eyes were on Obama on his maiden European voyage as president, and on the divisive issue of Afghanistan. For months, since before Obama's election, the U.S. has been trying to persuade its NATO allies to cough up more troops for the battle against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters believed to be hiding along the border with Pakistan.

In detailing a new strategy last month, the Obama administration pledged 4,000 additional U.S. troops to serve as trainers, raising to 21,000 the number of additional forces being deployed by Obama. That will boost the overall U.S. military presence to nearly 60,000, serving with about 35,000 NATO troops.

White House and Pentagon officials have acknowledged in recent weeks that their hopes for extra combat troops from NATO had dissipated. Instead, they repeatedly have pointed to a wide range of nonmilitary contributions that NATO countries could make to Obama's strategy, including military training and economic development.

Such adjustments in expectations reflected not only the unpopularity of the war but also the difficulty the administration faces in repairing the U.S. image abroad sufficiently to win support from international leaders. In part, Obama has tried to appeal to ordinary Europeans in the hope of tempering animosity toward the United States.

The war is increasingly unpopular with many Europeans, making their leaders leery of sending more soldiers. Yet participants at the NATO summit agreed that the mission in Afghanistan was vital even as they brushed aside American requests to significantly beef up their forces.

"We need to understand Afghanistan is a test case for all of us," German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared.

Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, summit co-hosts, expressed appreciation for Obama's strategy.

"We cannot afford to lose, because there [in Afghanistan] some of the freedom of the world is at stake," Sarkozy said, adding that Europe was "a strong pillar" the U.S. could rely on.

In addition to the troops and military trainers, NATO countries pledged $100 million to a fund for the Afghan army.

Although many Europeans were grateful to have any American leader other than the widely reviled former President George W. Bush, some political realities were too tough to overcome.

Obama charmed the audience at a town-hall-style meeting Friday in Strasbourg, during which he took the opportunity to emphasize the importance of the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yet on Saturday, antiwar and anti-NATO protesters thronged parts of the city, at one point setting fire to a hotel and causing police to resort to tear gas to beat them back. Several arrests were reported.

***********************************************************************

Iran ready to restart nuclear talks with EU

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia, May 30 (Xinhua) -- Iran is ready to restart its negotiations with the European Union (EU) over its nuclear enrichment program, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here on Tuesday.
"I would like to announce our readiness to restart immediately the negotiations with the EU 3 (Britain, France and Germany) to resolve the issue," Mottaki said.
Mottaki made the remarks at a news conference after the conclusion of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Coordinating Bureau (NAM-CoB) Ministerial Meeting in the Malaysian administrative center of Putrajaya.
Iran will respond to the call of the NAM and will resume negotiations on its nuclear enrichment program with other parties "without any preconditions", Mottaki told reporters.
Earlier, the NAM ministerial meeting released a statement, encouraging Iran to "urgently continue to cooperate actively and fully with the IAEA" in order to resolve the outstanding issue.
When asked whether Iran will resume direct talks with the United States, Mottaki attributed to the suspension to latter's "bad temperament"
"Iran might resume the direct talks over its nuclear program if Washington changed its behavior," said Mottaki.
Iran is a member country of the 45-year-old movement, which includes 116 members of the worldwide. Enditem

Editor: Nie Peng

***********************************************************************

Pakistan Govt. committed to live up to public aspirations: Gilani
LAHORE, Apr 5 (APP): Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani said Sunday that the government was fully committed to live up to public aspirations and counter internal and external challenges effectively. The Prime Minister was talking to newsmen here at Utility Store, Shadman where he checked the quality and prices of commodities.
To a question he said that peoples’empowerment was the philosophy of Shaheed Zulifkar Ali Bhutto who had given the slogan of “Roti, Kapra and Maakan”.
Now implementation of this philosophy is need of the hour so that
ample employment opportunities could be provided to a large number of jobless youth and houses to shelterless people across the country.
The Prime Minister said that the increased flow of direct and indirect investment would bring employment for masses while the government was working on a programme to provide one million houses to shelterless people throughout the country.
“The houses to be made available to shelterless people might be smaller in size but must be in large number to cater to the requirement “ , he said.
Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani said that Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) would be enhanced which will also include health insurance scheme.
To a question, he said that PPP would soon take decision regarding joining of Punjab cabinet.
To another question, he said that the trial of Shaheed Zulifkar Ali Bhutto needs to be reopened so that the nation could be informed about the facts of the case of their most popular leader who had given the nation unanimous constitution and nuclear programme.
Responding to yet another question, he said that Pakistan People’s Party would continue its reconciliation policy to strengthen the federation.
About terrorism, he said that media,parliament,civil society and all political parties should help in stamping out the menace of terrorism in the region by giving concrete and viable suggestions.
Regarding investigation of terror‑incidents,he said that he would not blame any one in this regard unless and until a final report regarding the elements behind these heinous occurrences is submitted to him.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(Sorce from various news services complementary reedited by 'The Monthly Muktidooth',Dacca,Bangladesh.)