Last week I posted on the pitfalls of leading by example in negotiations with hostile counterparts (altruism generally gets pocketed, not reciprocated). Today PBO gave a speech in Cairo which tried mightily to thread a foreign policy needle, a monumental challenge to say the least.
I'll be tracking published reports over the next week for signs that Israeli or Arab leadership take PBO's tough talk as an opportunity to soften on hitherto intractable issues.
Full disclosure: I'm not optimistic.
6/04/2009
The Fall of Her Majesty's Government
For the first time since March of 1979, Her Majesty’s Government faces the possibility of a “No Confidence” vote in the Parliament. While this vote is unlikely (but it is not impossible) to succeed, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is under increasing pressure due, primarily, to a scandal that has rocked the United Kingdom. Multiple members of the British Parliament have been caught defrauding the British taxpayers by receiving government reimbursements for personal expenses. These expenses include the payment of the mortgage on a second home, the cleaning of a moat (something could never happen here in American because I don’t know if there is an American who has a moat around his residence) and the paying for the pornographic movies of the husband of a Member of Parliament.
However, this is not the only reason. Mr. Brown and his cabinet ministers are seen as being ineffective in dealing with the global recession. Mr. Brown, in his role as First Lord of Her Majesty’s Treasury, has emptied the British treasury with little or no results.
The Prime Minister is no longer in control of the government. So far, he has lost four government ministers, including two Cabinet Ministers. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was forced to resign because of the scandal. (The British Home Secretary is roughly the equivalent of a combination of the US Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security.) Imagine the political toll it would take on President Obama if Attorney General Eric Holder or Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano were forced to resign because of financial misdeeds.
However, on Wednesday, Mr. Brown was dealt his biggest blow. On the eve of local and European elections in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, announced her resignation due to the expense scandal. Ms. Blears is the cabinet minister with direct responsibility for Thursday’s elections. Her resignation came despite pleas from the Prime Minister to wait until Friday when the election was over. Ms. Blears’ actions are seen as a direct assault on Mr. Brown’s authority as the leader of the Labour Party and, therefore as Prime Minister.
It has been reported that the Queen is so personally troubled by the scandal that she has told Mr. Brown that his failure to get control of the situation is running the risk of having the elected government lose the moral authority to legitimately govern her realm. In an action that would break with the tradition of modern Britain, there is speculation that the Queen may call for a new general election without the request of her government. This would be an extremely bold step and is highly unlikely in that such an action by a constitutional monarch would endanger the monarchy itself.
As the Labour Party suffers humiliating losses in the local elections, the European election, the by-election for the seat of the Labour Speaker, Michael Martin (who was also forced to resign as a result of the expense scandal), there is a growing danger that the Labour Party will no longer be one of the two major parties in the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats may become the second of the two major parties. After today, Labour Party officials may no longer be able to claim to voters that they shouldn’t waste their votes on the Lib Dems because they are a third party.
The prospect of the status as a third party cannot be a pleasant thought for the Labour Party members. With its historical link to organized labor no longer a selling-point, what does a third place Labour Party stand for?
The Conservative Party is poised to win big victories in today’s elections. This will set the stage for a return of the Tories to power in the next British general election, which must be held by June 3, 2010. Current projections show that the Tories will have a 15 seat majority in the new Parliament. Hopefully, as Prime Minister, Tory leader, David Cameron, will show the free world that through conservative economic principals, an industrial Western democracy can recover from a recession without significant government intervention. It certainly appears as if he will be given the chance.
However, this is not the only reason. Mr. Brown and his cabinet ministers are seen as being ineffective in dealing with the global recession. Mr. Brown, in his role as First Lord of Her Majesty’s Treasury, has emptied the British treasury with little or no results.
The Prime Minister is no longer in control of the government. So far, he has lost four government ministers, including two Cabinet Ministers. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was forced to resign because of the scandal. (The British Home Secretary is roughly the equivalent of a combination of the US Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security.) Imagine the political toll it would take on President Obama if Attorney General Eric Holder or Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano were forced to resign because of financial misdeeds.
However, on Wednesday, Mr. Brown was dealt his biggest blow. On the eve of local and European elections in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, announced her resignation due to the expense scandal. Ms. Blears is the cabinet minister with direct responsibility for Thursday’s elections. Her resignation came despite pleas from the Prime Minister to wait until Friday when the election was over. Ms. Blears’ actions are seen as a direct assault on Mr. Brown’s authority as the leader of the Labour Party and, therefore as Prime Minister.
It has been reported that the Queen is so personally troubled by the scandal that she has told Mr. Brown that his failure to get control of the situation is running the risk of having the elected government lose the moral authority to legitimately govern her realm. In an action that would break with the tradition of modern Britain, there is speculation that the Queen may call for a new general election without the request of her government. This would be an extremely bold step and is highly unlikely in that such an action by a constitutional monarch would endanger the monarchy itself.
As the Labour Party suffers humiliating losses in the local elections, the European election, the by-election for the seat of the Labour Speaker, Michael Martin (who was also forced to resign as a result of the expense scandal), there is a growing danger that the Labour Party will no longer be one of the two major parties in the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats may become the second of the two major parties. After today, Labour Party officials may no longer be able to claim to voters that they shouldn’t waste their votes on the Lib Dems because they are a third party.
The prospect of the status as a third party cannot be a pleasant thought for the Labour Party members. With its historical link to organized labor no longer a selling-point, what does a third place Labour Party stand for?
The Conservative Party is poised to win big victories in today’s elections. This will set the stage for a return of the Tories to power in the next British general election, which must be held by June 3, 2010. Current projections show that the Tories will have a 15 seat majority in the new Parliament. Hopefully, as Prime Minister, Tory leader, David Cameron, will show the free world that through conservative economic principals, an industrial Western democracy can recover from a recession without significant government intervention. It certainly appears as if he will be given the chance.
6/03/2009
6/02/2009
The Trip to the Middle East
As President Obama gets ready for his first presidential trip to the Middle East, I am afraid that it will just be a continuation of the Obama apology tour that began with his European trip last April and continued with his South American trip later that month.
The President is scheduled to deliver a major speech in Cairo on Thursday. Hopefully, the content of the speech will not signal the weakness that this President demonstrated in his first official Presidential interview (you know, the one with the Arab network, Al Arabiya). The time for speaking of mutual respect is over. America has shown the utmost respect for the Muslim world with the showing of very little respect in return. Thousands of American lives have been lost in the liberation of Muslims across the globe – remember the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama should demand that the so called Muslim world assist us in the War on Terror. Extremists must be stopped all across the Middle East. The regimes in the Arab countries should be told that they must not aide and abet terrorists. Their banks can no longer be used as conduits to fund the Islamist ideology. The education in the Arab schools must stop demonizing America and Israel. The curricula in these schools must be expanded beyond Koranic studies and include the skills that will enable the children to compete in the global market place.
President Obama should also speak of the goal of replacing the dictatorial regimes that currently occupy the seats of power in the Middle East with those of freely elected. He must remind them that free elections do not mean one man, one vote, one time.
The President should explain to our Arab friends that a nuclear armed Iran benefits no one, including them. The Iranians are no friends of the Saudis or the Egyptians. The mullahs in Iran have exported trouble to these nations and others across the region. Nuclear weapons only add to the potential for trouble. Therefore, our allies should assist in pressuring the Iranian government so that they cannot continue with their nuclear program.
Unfortunately, the early signals of Mr. Obama’s trip are not reassuring. His decision to not stop in Israel is troubling, to say the least. It sends the wrong signal when the President of the United States refuses to make a stop to visit our only democratic ally in region. Instead, he’d rather spend more time bowing and kowtowing to the King of Saudi ruled Arabia.
I hope that the Presidential snub of Israel does not signal an end to our sixty year support of that nation. However, this coupled with some of President Obama’s actions makes one wonder. For instance, isn’t it odd that the President is said to be outraged by the Israeli settlements in the West Bank while showing no such outrage over the Iranian nuclear program, which, of course, presents a clear and present danger to our national security (not to mention the security of our allies).
Once again President Obama is stepping front and center on the world stage. He has a choice. He can use it to send a clear message to our enemies (like Iran, North Korea and Al Qaeda) that we are strong and will defend our interests and those of our democratic allies. Or, he can use it to continue his role as apologizer-in-chief. Mr. President, it is up to you. But, remember, this time, the security of our nation may be at hand.
The President is scheduled to deliver a major speech in Cairo on Thursday. Hopefully, the content of the speech will not signal the weakness that this President demonstrated in his first official Presidential interview (you know, the one with the Arab network, Al Arabiya). The time for speaking of mutual respect is over. America has shown the utmost respect for the Muslim world with the showing of very little respect in return. Thousands of American lives have been lost in the liberation of Muslims across the globe – remember the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama should demand that the so called Muslim world assist us in the War on Terror. Extremists must be stopped all across the Middle East. The regimes in the Arab countries should be told that they must not aide and abet terrorists. Their banks can no longer be used as conduits to fund the Islamist ideology. The education in the Arab schools must stop demonizing America and Israel. The curricula in these schools must be expanded beyond Koranic studies and include the skills that will enable the children to compete in the global market place.
President Obama should also speak of the goal of replacing the dictatorial regimes that currently occupy the seats of power in the Middle East with those of freely elected. He must remind them that free elections do not mean one man, one vote, one time.
The President should explain to our Arab friends that a nuclear armed Iran benefits no one, including them. The Iranians are no friends of the Saudis or the Egyptians. The mullahs in Iran have exported trouble to these nations and others across the region. Nuclear weapons only add to the potential for trouble. Therefore, our allies should assist in pressuring the Iranian government so that they cannot continue with their nuclear program.
Unfortunately, the early signals of Mr. Obama’s trip are not reassuring. His decision to not stop in Israel is troubling, to say the least. It sends the wrong signal when the President of the United States refuses to make a stop to visit our only democratic ally in region. Instead, he’d rather spend more time bowing and kowtowing to the King of Saudi ruled Arabia.
I hope that the Presidential snub of Israel does not signal an end to our sixty year support of that nation. However, this coupled with some of President Obama’s actions makes one wonder. For instance, isn’t it odd that the President is said to be outraged by the Israeli settlements in the West Bank while showing no such outrage over the Iranian nuclear program, which, of course, presents a clear and present danger to our national security (not to mention the security of our allies).
Once again President Obama is stepping front and center on the world stage. He has a choice. He can use it to send a clear message to our enemies (like Iran, North Korea and Al Qaeda) that we are strong and will defend our interests and those of our democratic allies. Or, he can use it to continue his role as apologizer-in-chief. Mr. President, it is up to you. But, remember, this time, the security of our nation may be at hand.
Three Examples of Washington Managing GM (and it's only June 2)
Keeping GM's headquarters in Detroit
A genuinely disinterested investor would say he has no opinion on the matter.
Rent seeking dealers
Local dealerships mean jobs, sales taxes and more, the preservation of which is irresistible to individual members of Congress. Congressional pressure to sustain those dealerships will continue without regard for the individual dealership's impact on, or contribution to, GM.
Production
As with dealers, parts and finished goods will continue to be subject to Congressional demands for local production and assembly.
Maybe GM should be HQ'd in Detroit. Maybe it should have a wide, diverse distributor base. Maybe its production should be domiciled in the United States. The point is I don't know what's right for GM and individual members of Congress don't know either.
Think I'm wrong? Here's Sen. Sherrod Brown:
A genuinely disinterested investor would say he has no opinion on the matter.
Rent seeking dealers
Local dealerships mean jobs, sales taxes and more, the preservation of which is irresistible to individual members of Congress. Congressional pressure to sustain those dealerships will continue without regard for the individual dealership's impact on, or contribution to, GM.
Production
As with dealers, parts and finished goods will continue to be subject to Congressional demands for local production and assembly.
Maybe GM should be HQ'd in Detroit. Maybe it should have a wide, diverse distributor base. Maybe its production should be domiciled in the United States. The point is I don't know what's right for GM and individual members of Congress don't know either.
Think I'm wrong? Here's Sen. Sherrod Brown:
If taxpayers commit more resources to GM, they deserve to know those funds will be used to build cars at home rather than abroad . . . More government assistance to GM is about supporting domestic manufacturing, rather than just upholding a brand.Here's Sen. Debbie Stabenow:
If we have learned one thing from the global economic crisis it is that in order for our economy to thrive we must build things in this country. Now is the time for America to recommit to a strong manufacturing strategy that will rebuild our middle class.Or this letter from Sens. Rockefeller and Hutchison:
With nearly 2,000 dealerships closing and over 100,000 jobs at risk combined, I believe it is imperative for Chrysler and General Motors to immediately address the insufficient transition period, help dealerships recoup full inventory costs, minimize job loss, and provide consumers with access to quality service.Brown, Hutchison, Rockefeller, Stabenow, and their 531 colleagues all have their own opinions about what's good for GM, the country and their constituents. They also all have their own opinions about what constitutes an appropriate management prerogative. A genuinely passive owner would express no opinion on almost every topic, especially in public. There's no possible way Congress will keep its collective mouth shut during Treasury's ownership of GM. Over time, management will start shaping decisions to please what it thinks ownership wants. Ownership in this case has very different ideas about what makes for a successful car company. Profit and quality are irrelevant considerations for Washington, no matter what they say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
