We've moved!

(Flickr/H@ne)

We are delighted to announce our move to Foreign Policy Association's Web site. Women and Foreign Policy (yes, a slight name change) will continue to explore the same issues, with a special focus on the role of women in political life and, for the lack of a better phrase, women's issues. Keep reading, keep commenting and thanks!

The Great Schlep and jolly 5769!

I am not a big fan of Sarah Silverman, who I find more crass than funny. It took a lot to sit through the whole of Jesus is Magic. I did enjoy the Silverman v. Jimmy Kimmel sing-off featuring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Now, comes another tiny step toward Silverman’s long-shot redemption. The Great Schlep campaign wants Jewish grandchildren to visit their grandparents in the sunshine state (“a little man named Al Gore got f****d by Florida”) and get them to vote for Barack Obama (“our last chance for ending this reputation as the assholes of the universe.”) The site provides talking points on the whole black thing, Israel and other foreign policy issues. Unfortunately, I couldn’t open the PDF. Perhaps Rosh Hashanah traffic.

Anyways, here’s Silverman making her pitch and happy 5769!



Tip of the hat to Mindy Gold over at Moment Magazine’s blog.

The funny files

(Bloggerknight/Flickr)


A notable addition to the illustrious line of light bulb jokes came to me via Shilpa via Andrew Sullivan via, well, who knows? Here goes it:

Q. How many neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Neocons don't bother with light bulbs. They declare a War on Darkness and set the house on fire.

Chavez's balancing act

(Presidente Chávez en la graduación de la Misión Che Guevara Cargado originalmente por ¡Que comunismo!)

In his post- Cold War classic The Grand Chessboard Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the maintenance of the United States exceptional position as the world's only superpower demanded the deployment of aggressive geopolitical strategy. Throughout his book Brzezinski adviced policy makers on keeping their eyes on the prize, the Eurasian continent:

A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral.(Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books: 1989, p.31)

Enter Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ready to crash Brzezinski's carefully crafted model. Backed by Venezuela's oil wealth and by elections and referenda which have legitimized his presidency, Chavez has pursued a foreign policy agenda counter to the Bush administration's objectives.

Rejecting his nation's peripheral status with his actions and declarations, Chavez has made a name for himself in American mainstream media and in the midst of the presidential campaign coverage he is consistently mentioned as one of those difficult world leaders the next U.S. administration will have to deal with.

Lately Chavez has made international headlines by rekindling his friendship with Russia - of recent Georgia invasion fame- hosting two strategic Russian bombers in Venezuela and preparing to conduct a joint naval exercise in Caribbean waters. The intrepid Venezuelan is also planning a state visit to Moscow next Friday.

Coming from a Western Hemisphere country where foreign policy options have been permanently constrained to different versions of bandwagoning I cannot help but to marvel at Chavez's sheer determination to participate in the often off limits game of balance of power. Thucydides would be proud at his awkward but persistent Venezuelan student.

A positive externality

(Sarah Palin spread in my local newspaper, El Norte, September 21st, 2008)

In economics a positive externality occurs when an individual or a firm making a decision does not receive in full the benefit of that decision. The concept can be easily applied to what I consider to be an unintended effect of the current presidential campaigns in the United States: Hillary Clinton’s bid to become the Democratic nominee and Sarah Palin’s candidacy have done no small favor to the struggle of women politicians across the border.

In Mexico those women who have managed to achieve national recognition have not followed through by actually becoming members of the tight group of key decision makers. Neither Patricia Mercado, nor Cecilia Soto or Rosario Ibarra received each more than 5% of the vote when they contended for the Mexican presidency. It is safe to state that women politicians in Mexico have yet to build a generally credible counter hegemony, to use Adam Przeworski’s term, which would allow for the effective dismantling of the current male monopoly of national politics.

Yet, both Clinton and Palin have been the object of widespread attention by the Mexican media and the coverage is having the inadvertent effect of reassuring the general public on the idea of women occupying the highest positions of power. Moreover, the healthy ongoing debate in the United States about what constitutes a double standard in the vetting of a female candidate will prove to be of immense value for those Mexican women attempting to break their own political glass ceiling.

(Note to Nonna: no more Palin entries for a week I promise. Don't want to be held responsible for inducing assorted nightmares!)

Sex and the City author not joining the Sarah Palin bashing fest

(satc00119Cargado originalmente por Howie_Berlin)

In an interview with The Huffington Post's Lesley M.M. Blume, Sex and the City author Candace Bushnell had this to say on the topic of women in politics:

I was disturbed by what I read about Hillary before she lost the nomination.There were editorials about, 'yes, we want a woman, but she has to be the right woman.' The standards that we are trying to impose on someone who's just a person are enormous. I think we have to let go of the idea that we have to have a woman who's perfect to every woman. She just has to be good at what she does. When we talk about male politicians, we don't hold them to mystical standards of perfection.

I certainly do not agree with Sarah Palin's politics, but at the same time, as an American citizen, she is entitled to her beliefs, just as all women are entitled to their beliefs. We don't all have to agree. One of the things that's interesting about these campaigns is that - guess what - women are as different from each other as men. We allow for all different kinds of male types. We need to allow for all different kinds of female types as well.

The revered National Organization for Women begs to differ from Bushnell. In a statement released by NOW's chair Kim Gandy, the organization not only declines to support Palin but also fails to give credit to any of her credentials or life experience as factors that would in any way promote the advancement of women. In doing so, NOW chooses wording reminiscent of some of the feminist(?) attacks on the Hillary Clinton candidacy: Palin has officially joined Clinton in the ranks of not-the right-women-to-be-supported group of female politicians. Cosmos anyone?

.

"Nanny" diplomacy

(Seth Browarnik/startraksphoto.com)

In a flamboyant move by the Bush administration, Fran Drescher has been appointed as a U.S. public diplomacy envoy. Drescher is best known as the star of the sitcom “The Nanny,” where her loud, glitzy ways earned her many admirers but forced others to turn off their TV sets, claiming damaged ear drums.

It will take more than even the most capable nanny to clean up our foreign policy messes. Still, I have always been a fan of cultural exchanges, and I am convinced that the world would be a better place if more Americans spent some time abroad.

Drescher is a rape and cancer survivor. She founded the organization Cancer Schmancer and will spend her time as envoy focusing on women’s health issues, including early cancer detection. She is the first non-athlete to take up the post and as Agence France-Presse reports:

Her appointment is all the more interesting as President George W. Bush's administration has fought to reverse the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade law establishing a woman's legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Asked her views on abortion, Drescher said: "I think that government is out of place to legislate a woman's body.

"But I do think that the world has to become a more female-friendly place so that a woman can make the choice for pro-life on her own because she knows that she and her unborn will be well taken care of," Drescher said.

According ABC News, Drescher was originally offered the job by Karen Hughes, then undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, who once infamously lumped pro-choice advocates with terrorists.

Well, what can I say? Kudos to the Bush administration for appointing someone who disagrees with the president!

Good luck to Drescher on her world tour spreading women’s empowerment, love of apple pie land and a mean New York accent!

Remembering the 2006 Mexican presidential elections

Andrés Manuel López Obrador
Cargado originalmente por natarén

Ever since Hillary Clinton put a stop to her campaign to win the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee I have been forcing myself not to draw comparisons between the current presidential race in the United States and our experience in Mexico a couple of years ago.

I believe that for democracy to be functional, electoral outcomes should result from voters’ enforcement of accountability. If a party in government has done right by the people, they should reward it by voting for its re-election. If, on the contrary, a party in government has failed in fulfilling its mandate, elections are the mechanism to ensure its demise from power and allow for another party to deliver on the demands of the majority.

Yet modern campaigning can often stand in the way of democratic accountability. Case in point is the 2006 Mexican presidential election. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a popular Mayor of Mexico City, started his bid propelled by polls agreeing on his front runner status as candidate. His campaign slogan was irresistible. "Primero, los pobres" ("First, the poor") was a simple and poignant reminder of what the first opposition government after 70 years of one party rule had failed to do: address effectively Mexico’s extreme inequality and poverty.

Lopez Obrador has pointed to the uneven and unfair conditions that ensured his unexplainable loss of the presidency to Felipe Calderon, a lackluster conservative candidate who promised more of the same failed policies courtesy of the Vicente Fox administration. Until now he has refused to acknowledge the obvious mistakes his campaign made in connecting with the voters and successfully presenting its message.

Completely certain of his triumph Lopez Obrador chose not to attend the first of the presidential debates which resulted in his first setback in the polls. Constituencies were regularly thrown under the bus by the Lopez Obrador campaign, as their internal polling showed them these were people not needed to secure a win. The candidate's own stubbornness and the zeal of many of his supporters raised suspicion amongst those not comfortable with Obrador's inspired leadership being offered as the solution to the country's woes.

Lopez Obrador's public persona and his campaign's confidence on the power of his charisma above the power of his arguments paved the way for some nasty characterizations made by the conservative press and by Calderon's negative campaign which influenced voters’ perceptions. Lopez Obrador was presented as messianic and full of himself. He was deemed an out-of-touch populist supported only by leftist intellectuals and those who did not know any better. He did not become president in part because by the end of the campaigns, while most Mexicans still disapproved of Vicente Fox's mismanagement many had come to believe that the Lopez Obrador alternative was scarier.

The Obama campaign has been falling into some of the same traps and thus has found itself in the current situation evinced by the latest polls: he is tied with the Republicans after 8 years of Bush. According to Rasmussen McCain is already ahead in the electoral college contest with 200 votes against Obama's 193. Campaigns do matter. Negative propaganda works. Ignoring or offending independents and the undecided takes a toll on a candidate's chances to win an election. Yet Obama and his supporters seem bent on staying on the path already transited by another progressive politician just across the border. At the end all mistakes will be redeemed as a result of Obama’s transformational, transcendental and post-partisan halo. Right.

Slightly off topic and on a cheerful note...

Mexico Flag / Bandera de Mexico
Cargado originalmente por Esparta

At midnight Mexican Independence will be commemorated with the traditional "Grito" a reenactment of Catholic Priest Miguel Hidalgo's call in 1810 to an uprising that marked the start of the long struggle towards achieving independence from Spain. Tomorrow is Mexico's most revered national day to be celebrated with fiestas and parades... that is if Ike will kindly give us a break.

Turning the tables

Gordon Brown - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008
Cargado originalmente por World Economic Forum
(Gordon Brown sporting Mr. Bean's haircut at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2008 Copyright World Economic Forum Photo by Remy Steinegger)

It appears that Mexican president Felipe Calderon is not alone amongst foreign leaders who declare their support for one of the U.S.presidential candidates. Just last week British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made headlines with his endorsement of Barack Obama. Praising the advance of progressive leadership around the world, Brown described Obama's campaign as the one "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Brown made no mention in his article of what John McCain and the Republicans are contributing to the race. He has subsequently been criticized for this endorsement which has been qualified as a diplomatic blunder, with the British press arguing that leaders should maintain neutrality at all times regarding the elections in another country.

When I blogged about Calderon's wink at the McCain campaign Nonna rightly asked if this was a common practice, for a Mexican president to meddle into another country's election by announcing who his preferred winner was. My answer was no, it was not common. I also added that Calderon's words would have no impact on the Mexican- American vote. Yet I contended Calderon had good reasons to hope for a McCain win: his party has always maintained a good relation with the Republicans, the United States is Mexico's neighbour and largest economic partner and the Mexican government shares the Republican view on trade. Plus McCain's immigration stand is in tune with what the Mexican government advocates for those who cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

The United States has traditionally and unapologetically made its preferences be known when other countries elect their leaders. With all the debate on what the "Bush doctrine" entails, one foreign policy doctrine that is well understood in the hemisphere is the Monroe doctrine with its Roosevelt Corollary. In Latin America, the United States has tried historically to exercise a veto power over the electoral choices people make when they are not in accordance with United States interests. Sometimes the United States has even recurred to military intervention or supported internal military coups in order to exercise this veto.

With the end of the Cold War, tipping electoral preferences abroad to favor American interests has required a more sophisticated approach. Declarations of United States ambassadors, American newspaper editorials, announcements made by State Department officials, all have the intention of letting Latin Americans know if a candidate would be welcomed by the United States as someone they can work with. A number of times, a United States endorsement has had the opposite intended effect as Latin American voters have chosen to reject American electoral advice (the elections and re-elections through referenda of both Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are examples of this trend).

The Bush administration's current unpopularity in and outside of the United States and the Iraqi disaster have paved the way for the tables turning. Call it the globalization of electoral meddling. The United States meddles with elections in other countries and other countries are now meddling with the elections in the United States. In a world where United States foreign policy decisions have such a big impact on the well being of all peoples it is plain common sense for foreign leaders to have a position on the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. Is it undiplomatic to make their preferences publicly known? Yes. Relevant to voters’ preferences in the U.S.? No. Reason enough to back a complaint from within the United States? Certainly not, as the United States would thus be forced to acknowledge and decry its current and past interventionist actions in foreign elections, many of them much more condemnable than Calderon's support for John McCain or the enthusiastic praise that Brown had for Barack Obama.

A nonpartisan message from Gov. Palin and Senator Clinton on Saturday Night Live

What would Oriana Fallaci ask?

(Wendypants/Flickr)


In the United States, softball interviews with politicians are all too common. There are too many handlers and too many media outlets vying to get the “EXCLUSIVE.” One thing that struck me while studying in Britain during Tony Blair’s premiership was how often Blair would subject himself to drilling from reporters on the unpopular Iraq war. By contrast, George W. Bush took a decidedly Bartleby approach to the press.

The British prime minister faces aggressive questioning from MPs each week during Question Time and has his responses mocked accordingly. American voters don’t enjoy similar treats. Sure, we celebrate our freedom from the monarchy with massive consumption of grilled meat and beer on Fourth of July, but the president is treated more like the queen and less like the prime minister.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a fantastic Vanity Fair article back in 2006 about the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci and the demise of the art of the interview. The part that stayed with me was the beginning:

Here is an excerpt from an interview with what our media culture calls a "world leader":

Dan Rather: Mr. President, I hope you will take this question in the spirit in which it's asked. First of all, I regret that I do not speak Arabic. Do you speak any … any English at all?
Saddam Hussein (through translator): Have some coffee.
Rather: I have coffee.
Hussein (through translator): Americans like coffee.
Rather: That's true. And this American likes coffee.

And here is another interview with another "world leader":

Oriana Fallaci: When I try to talk about you, here in Tehran, people lock themselves in a fearful silence. They don't even dare pronounce your name, Majesty. Why is that?
The Shah: Out of an excess of respect, I suppose.
Fallaci: I'd like to ask you: if I were an Iranian instead of an Italian, and lived here and thought as I do and wrote as I do, I mean if I were to criticize you, would you throw me in jail?
The Shah: Probably.

The difference here is not just in the quality of the answers given by the two homicidal dictators. It is in the quality of the questions.

Charlie Gibson is no Oriana Fallaci and Sarah Palin is no Shah. I had very low expectations of the hyped up interview and, as a result, was not disappointed. Palin was clearly not answering some of Gibson’s questions and he was right to push her on some of them. He did not push all the way, but at least he did it. The question about her being able to handle her large family and the vice presidency was inappropriate. Interestingly, though, when he asked her if she thought it was a sexist question, she ran away from the word as if it were a contagious disease.

The Bush doctrine part of the interview has turned into an embarrassment for both sides. In the previous post, Barbara argues that Palin was right to ask Gibson for a clarification on which aspect of the Bush doctrine he meant. U.S. News and World Report Report’s Robert Schlesinger points out that Gibson should have used “preventive war” instead of “pre-emptive war.” My main beef with Gibson is that he used language that was unfamiliar to many people watching the program. Still, Palin is not just one of the viewers, and it was pretty clear to me that she did not have the foggiest idea about what he was talking about:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush—well, what do you—what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

Asking tough, well-researched questions is one of the most important tasks that a reporter has. Honest answers to those tough questions set great politicians apart from mediocre ones.

Palin's impatient (and wrong) foreign policy teacher

Sarah Palin's anticipated interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is now being publicised by some in the media as conclusive proof of the Governor of Alaska's lack of foreign policy experience. At one point of the interview Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "Bush doctrine". Her answer ("In what respect Charlie?") is being mocked as evidence of Palin's ignorance, an ignorance to be expected from a woman politician who, quite obviously for Gibson and many others, has no business in contending for the vice presidency of the United States.

According to the creator of the term, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Palin was right in demanding from Gibson a clarification of his question. Gibson's characterization of the "Bush doctrine" as purely a doctrine of preemptive war is wrong according to Krauthammer:

It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Krauthammer centers his criticism in Gibson's perceived exasperation on defining the Bush doctrine for Palin and how this issue has been overexploited by the pundits to further dicredit McCain's VP pick:

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Tasteless cake

(Joe Germushka/Flickr)

Forget the joint and unnecessary appearance at ground zero by John McCain and Barack Obama. This cake, spotted at a Swedish bakery in Chicago, is one of the more bizarre examples of yesterday’s 9/11 commemorations. Thanks to my colleague Maxine Springer for telling me about the Cake Wrecks blog, home of numerous sugary monstrosities/reminders of why some of us just shouldn’t bake.

Debating a Lady 101

Jennifer Granholm (T.W.I.T./Flickr)

My hat’s off to Jennifer Granholm, Michigan’s governor, for agreeing to lock herself up with Joe Biden for four whole days during which she will pretend to be Sarah Palin. Like Palin, Granholm is the first female governor of her state, a mom and a former beauty pageant winner (Miss San Carlos, California, 1977). Except, of course, she is liberal and spent more time in the ivory towers (Berkeley—go bears!—and Harvard Law School).

I don’t know if it ever change, but the dynamics of a man debating a man, a man debating woman and a woman debating a woman are completely different. Biden is clearly Palin’s superior in his knowledge of the issues but has the unfortunate tendency to yell, seem too full of himself and blurt out inappropriate things. If he comes off as being condescending, he will lose the debate even if he wins on the arguments. Let’s hope that Granholm will practice some very tough love.

Best of Moment Magazine’s September/October 2008 issue

I thought that the foreign policy crowd would be interested in a few of the articles that appear in Moment’s current issue (the first one I helped edit since being back in Washington):



1.“Does God have a seat on the Supreme Court?” Five Catholics. Two Protestants. Two Jews. What impact does a justice’s faith have on his or her jurisprudence? Legal experts Marci Hamilton, Douglas Kmiec, Abner Mikva, Jamie Raskin, Jeffrey Rosen, Jeffrey Toobin, Laurence Tribe, Eugene Volokh and Wendy Webster Williams to shed some light.

2. “Return to Jewish Kurdistan.” As a kid, American journalist Ariel Sabar was embarrassed by Yona, his Iraqi-born and Israeli-raised father who became a noted expert of Aramaic at UCLA. As an adult, Ariel decided that he and his dad should go to Zakho, Yona’s hometown, during the Iraq war and bond. A fascinating read about the home of a Jewish community that dated back to the destruction of the First Temple and a son’s search to reconnect with his father. Ariel is going to be reading from his book, My Father’s Paradise, at this month's Jewish Literary Festival in Washington, DC.

3. Ms. Magazine's founding editor Letty Cottin Pogrebin makes the case for why American Jews should vote for Barack Obama, and Forward reporter Nathan Guttman discusses why Israel is not the #1 issue for American Jews.

The whole of the current issue is accessible online and if that is not enough Moment for you, there is also the recently launched blog.

Strange bedfellows: Mexican millionaire Carlos Slim and The New York Times

(Courtesy of Scott Wilbur. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)


El Universal has announced that Mexican businessman Carlos Slim has acquired 6.4 per cent of Class A actions of The New York Times.The newspaper adds that the move makes Slim the third largest holder behind the Sulzberger family.

Slim's intentions in this deal are not clear, according to the same paper. Slim has declared his investment follows strictly financial reasons and that this is not part of a strategic maneuver to influence the media across the Mexican border. He declined to state how much he paid for his share of NYT actions or if he has any plans to increase his holdings.

Slim owns TELMEX, the national telephone company in Mexico, a quasi-monopoly sold by the state in a questionable privatization dealing during the Carlos Salinas administration. The company has since profited from the lack of competition. Currently, Mexicans pay some of the highest telephone and mobile rates while Slim has become the second richest person in the world.

Unlike U.S. billionaires Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, Slim has not been particularly keen to share his wealth through grand scale philanthropic efforts. Neither has he attached himself to any progressive causes in the Mexican political landscape. On the contrary, he has been active in defending the de facto and legal privileges that allow his company to thrive in one of the most unequal countries in the hemisphere. Slim's political views in Mexico would mostly resemble those of many conservatives in the United States. Up until now he has made clear his support to a Mexican state strong enough to protect his vested interests but, at the same time, weak in responding to the demands of the majority.

De facto foreign policy

The New York Times today reports that Asian stock markets rose two to four percent after the U.S. Treasury's announcement that it was transferring control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to conservatorship. While a defensible domestic intervention to prop up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a down economy and a severely wounded mortgage system, the U.S. government's decision to take over the mortgage giants is, in fact, de facto foreign policy. It is de facto foreign policy because this seemingly domestic policy has the unintended effect of subsidizing foreign central banks' investments in dollar-denominated bonds. Inadvertent foreign aid certainly is not good foreign policy (regardless of the domestic soundness of the recent government move)!

Due to the lack of financial discipline by the Bush administration, which is fighting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time, the funds must come from somewhere. Enter Asian central banks like People's Bank of China. These banks are much too integrated with the U.S. financial debt structure for their good and for our good.

The Asian central banks know that this is not a particular good time to ride the tides with the U.S. economy, yet they are addicted to cheap money and competitive markets for their exports. What about the U.S.? We rely on Asian and other foreign funds to fuel the ever growing national deficit and consumer indebtedness. The size and distribution of Freddie Mac debt holdings is case in point. The same article reports that "while central banks around the world have historically accounted for a quarter of purchases of Freddie Mac debt, their share rose to 37 percent for debt issued since 2006... The bulk of those purchases appear to have been by Asian central banks, which have been buying dollar-denominated securities at a record pace to slow their currencies' rise against the dollar and thus preserve the competitiveness of their exports." NPR's Morning Edition suggests that the U.S. is in a bind because who else would "recycle Americans' dollars" to feed our appetite for more "things we can't afford."

Even in our interconnected world, it is worrisome when American domestic policies become foreign policies by default rather than by thoughtful design.

Become a fan

(Courtesy of FoNgEtZ. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)

There's now a Women on Foreign Policy Facebook page. "Become a fan," put your five cents (or other currency) in on our discussion board and receive updates on the site's notable happenings. Thanks for stopping by!

Palin declared the war in Iraq "a task from God"

Speaking at the Wasilla Assembly of God, her former church, last year, Governor Sarah Palin asked Jesus for a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska and called the war in Iraq a “task from God.” As she put it, “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.” Some may suggest drafting a plan (in Washington) or reconfiguring a plan that doesn’t work or not invading Iraq in the first place. But what do these earthlings, who begin wars in the first place, know anyway?

The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan

During WWII, more than 200,000 women and girls from Korea, China and other countries were forced to serve as so-called "comfort women" to Japanese soldiers. The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan has supported these victims since its founding in 1990. Through its research and lobbying, the Korean Council seeks to get the Japanese government to recognize the wrong and compensate the survivors. The group has also been providing counseling and housing for elderly victims in need, still struggling physical and emotional abuses of their ordeal. The Korean Council won an important victory last year when, after a decade-long campaign by a coalition of international organizations, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the resolution calling for full responsibility and apology from Japan.

Dear allies, please don't border Russia

(Courtesy of Patrick Q. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)

The Onion reports on what must be the best foreign policy advice ever given to former Soviet republics and satellites:

Following Russia's controversial military excursions into neighboring Georgia, the Bush administration made its most direct commitment to the U.S.'s Eastern European allies to date by "strongly advising" those countries not to border Russia under any circumstance. "The United States stands by its allies, but will not be able to defend our friends in the region if they continue to share geographical lines with Russia," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a Monday press conference.

Beauty and the vote

Sarah Palin's nomination to be the Vice President of the United States as part of the Republican ticket has encountered severe criticism from both the mainstream media and the liberal blogosphere.

The Governor of Alaska's alleged lack of qualifications and experience has been cited by pro-Obama commentators as reason enough to condemn John McCain's pick. However, many of the attacks against Palin have not been solely directed at her conservative stands or her policy choices.

"Caribou barbie," "beauty queen" and "trophy Vice" have been regularly used as supporting elements to discredit Palin as a viable candidate. The fact that she competed in the Miss Alaska 1984 beauty pageant where she won second place and a college scholarship is given as sufficient evidence that she cannot be taken seriously as a politician the underlying argument being that an attractive woman must be a bimbo, and a bimbo must not be in a position of power.

Most disturbingly, many of those willing to fire the thinly veiled misogynistic bullets are self proclaimed liberal women. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes:

The guilty pleasure I miss most when I’m out slogging on the campaign trail is the chance to sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick. So imagine my delight, my absolute astonishment, when the hockey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin.

The reality is that the world of politics is still dominated by men and this has not changed with the current surge of Dowd-approved, non-sassy, serious, intense and highly educated women involved in politics around the world.

Many women who have advanced in politics until now have done so aided by a family name made trustworthy by the actions of a male. Without questioning their remarkable careers and credentials, Michele Bachelet, Cristina Kirchner, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Hillary Clinton may fall into this category.

Other female leaders have succeeded by projecting a character that is not by-and-large associated with what are generally acknowledged as feminine traits. Examples of these so-called iron ladies are Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel.

Although Palin does not fall into any of the described categories her story is hardly unique. Her political career is reminiscent to that of Venezuelan Irene Saez. Saez competed and won in the 1981 Miss Universe pageant. Like Palin, she subsequently earned a B.A. and later on decided to run for office in a small municipality. As Mayor of Chacao, Saez enjoyed high approval ratings. She was re-elected and then decided to run for president on an anti-corruption platform that echoed Venezuelans rejection of the traditional political parties. After losing to Hugo Chavez in the 1998 elections, Saez decided to run for the governorship of Nueva Esparta. She won handily with 70% of the vote.

A woman politician who fulfills all of Maureen Dowd's feminist requirements might take a while to come by. That is remembering that Ms. Dowd was also hostile towards Hillary Clinton, a non-Sarah Palin like female politician if there ever was one.

Women still have a hard enough time to reach the upper levels of decision making positions for Palin's physique to be enlisted as one of her disqualifications to run for office. In an equal opportunity world a woman should at least have the right to be attractive and succeed in politics without having to apologise for it to the self appointed defenders of feminism, regardless of her platform and views.

China's Iron Lady

Retired in March 2008, China's iron lady, Wu Yi, earned her reputation owing to her competence and vision in domestic and foreign affairs. She was one of four Vice Premiers of the State Council of the People's Republic of China (the western equivalent of Vice Prime Minister), and was the first woman to hold such a leading position since economic and political reforms in 1978. Known as one of the toughest negotiators in the PRC government, Forbes magazine ranked her as the second most powerful woman in the world behind Condoleezza Rice in 2004, 2005, and Angela Merkel in 2007. At home, following the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, she helped persuade coal workers threatening to go on strike to continue working. From 1991 until 1998, she held successively the posts of Deputy Minister of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Minister of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, and was a member of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the highest Party authority. During the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) crisis, her replacing Zhang Wenkang, who had been fired for his cover-up of the crisis as health minister, and her investigations of the crisis opened a new chapter in the country's standards in cadre management. Time magazine called her the "Goddess of Transparency" for her leadership during the crisis and named her one of Time's 100 Most Influential People of 2004. In foreign affairs, realizing the importance of the PRC's participation in the international arena, and seeing the PRC's contribution as a crucial boost to the country's overall development, Wu helped negotiate the country's entry into the World Trade Organization while making efforts to tighten the customs after U.S. complaints over the widespread violation of intellectual property rights. During the last months of her tenure, Wu continued to be heavily involved in negotiations with U.S. toy giant Mattel over toy lead content as a means to alleviate the significant woes to the reputation of Chinese products. Wu's achievements are significant because they help build a role model for future Chinese leaders and tell the world that the PRC's call for competent and clean officials is genuine.

Right women rule, left women drool?

(Photo courtesy of Roger H. Goun. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)


The Guardian’s Anne Perkins asks the question that is on the minds of Hillary Clinton supporters these days:

So why is it that women get more chances on the political right than it seems they do on the left? Is there something not very progressive about progressives, is the right really gender-blind, or is there something else going on here.

One explanation, she argues, is that:

The women on the right (who make it) share a common disregard for gender politics. The women on the left (who by and large haven't, or at least not yet) have made feminism an integral part of their public personality.

OK, enough feminist talk. I am too distracted by the number of times the term "hockey mom" has been uttered at the RNC. Can I get a count on "moose" as well? Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and pretty much anyone else actually responsible for foreign policy.

Mexican president endorses McCain

Does it even matter? Hispanic network Univision announces Mexican president Felipe Calderon has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain. This should not come as any surprise. Calderon's party, the PAN (National Action Party- conservative) has for long held close relations with the Republican party.

According to the AP article, Calderon believes that McCain "knows the Mexican reality better" even though he acknowledges that Obama is being supported by many Mexican-Americans. Calderon said Obama's plans regarding NAFTA could entail a "return to protectionism" which would be damaging to the bilateral relationship. He added that McCain has supported "the most advanced immigration proposal."

Calderon's public endorsement is logical. He does not want NAFTA to be unilateraly renegotiated and demanding a humane and fair treatment of Mexican immigrants abroad is part of the mandate of any Mexican president. But does it matter whom he endorses? Will his declarations have any impact on the electoral preferences of Mexican-Americans?

The answer is... hardly. Most immigrants crossed the border to escape from a vicious circle of poverty and exclusion. Some risked their lives in the process. Many have encountered racism and denigrating treatment in their search for better opportunities. Not one of them is under any obligation to heed Calderon's opinion on how to cast their vote.

Calderon might have some influence if his own record as Mexican president was different. A reform minded Mexican Executive, willing and able to address effectively Mexico's problems of inequality, corruption and violence could expect the sympathies of those who were forced to flee from the status-quo. Such a president Calderon is not and his opinions regarding the candidates are not only uncalled for but also irrelevant.

Putin and Palin

If the Republican ticket wins, the caribou-hunting Sarah Palin and tiger-taming Vladimir Putin can swap shooting techniques as they attempt to put some love into the Alaska-warm U.S.-Russian relations.

P.S. Some editor at Der Spiegel loves Putin showing a bit of skin so much that she (or he?) created a "Putin Just Can't Keep His Shirt On" photo gallery. One more sign of a "resurgent Russia"?

"Women don't vote with the big head!"

The Daily Show's "senior female & women's issues correspondent" Samantha Bee gives her analysis of why die-hard Clinton followers are now sold on McCain.

Repairing a damaged image

In his address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, former U.S. President Bill Clinton argued that two questions will have to be answered by voters when deciding whom to elect: who can restore confidence in the attainability of the American dream at home and who can restore America's world leadership.

Whether the response of the American electorate is Barack Obama or John McCain, one thing is certain: the demise of the Bush administration will entail an opportunity for the United States to repair its damaged international relations and improve the bargaining position of that country in the world arena.

The unilateral decision to invade Iraq as part of a strategy to win the war on terrorism was met in the rest of the world with positions ranging from criticism to outright rejection. Some of the governments, like Spain and Great Britain, that initially joined the coalition of the willing were later forced by the pressure of their internal electorates to reconsider their full support to the Bush strategy.

Most Latin American countries were not sold on the Bush doctrine. Mexico and Chile, members of the UN Security Council, chose not to support the United States representation in its demand for a UN sanctioned intervention on Iraq. In Mexico, the decision was not made by President Vicente Fox but by public opinion. Although Fox himself might have been willing to disregard Mexico's own historical experience as an invaded country in exchange for Bush's support to his plan on a bilateral immigration agreement, Mexican voters overwhelmingly condemned the Iraq war. In the midst of midterm elections, Fox was forced to go against his own inclinations to increase his party's chances at winning a majority.

The weak Latin American representation in the coalition of the willing gave the Bush administration enough of a reason to continue ignoring the region. That is, if any reason was needed to justify the non-strategy towards Latin America. Regional issues such as drug trafficking, immigration and economic development were to be addressed unilaterally by the United States or not at all.

Latin America's views on the United States can be divided between aspirational and resentful. On the one hand, Latin American societies admire American democracy, economic might and the rights and opportunities enjoyed by United States citizens. On the other, many Latin Americans resent the intermitent drive of United States administrations to push other countries around in order to further their interests, while making a mockery of the values and principles they uphold at home.

As Bill Clinton stated at Denver, the United States position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation and by a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy. In regards to the hemisphere's shared challenges, the end of the Bush administration will represent a unique opportunity for the United States to repair its relations with Latin American countries. A cooperative approach will resonate with Latin American societies and directly promote the aspirational view of the United States. This in turn will surely foster Latin American countries willingness to share responsibilities and efforts with the United States in providing solution to regional and world problems.

Newsflash: Alaska is next to Russia!

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Americans favor governors over senators when picking their presidents even though the latter tend to have much more foreign policy experience. Nevertheless, it is important for all presidential and vice presidential candidates to affirm their knowledge of and interest in foreign policy to the American public.

Sometimes, valiant efforts to do so backfire. Back in 1999, George W. Bush infamously flunked a quiz on foreign affairs when he was asked to name the leaders of such exotic hot spots as Chechnya and Taiwan. Clearly, such things don't really matter in determining the outcome of elections, but I doubt that any other candidate will concede to answering similarly brazen questions ever again. Pity.

One of the biggest criticisms of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain's recently-picked running mate, is her lack of foreign policy experience. Steve Doocy, of Fox News, was trying really hard to find something,anything, to refute the claim and came up with: "[T]he other thing about her, she does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to Russia." Who knows, perhaps you do get a better view into Putin's soul from Juneau than Washington.

Republicans are somewhat undercutting their own argument about the importance of foreign policy experience by picking her. However, I doubt that Democrats will gain many points on this one since, ultimately, Barack Obama is still at the top of the ticket and his foreign policy experience is minimal. Obama's best bet is to argue, as he has been doing, that he knows enough to do better than the current mess. It is a very, very low bar to cross but John Kerry, a person infinitely more experienced, failed, and I am not sure if Obama will be any different.