Obama face Frist 100 days of foreign affairs

Judging by the hysterical reaction in some quarters, to President Obama's handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, or his bow to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, you would think that America's national security rested solely on body language not sound policy.

But just for the record, let's not forget that President George W. Bush kissed and held hands with the same Abdullah after 9/11, while also looking deep into the soul of Vladimir Putin. And a generation earlier, egged on by British Prime Minister "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher, President "Tear Down That Wall" Ronald Reagan, decided that indeed Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was a man he could do business with: the business of ending the Cold War.

The presidential handshake between Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez spurred many comments.
While Obama has not managed in 100 days to defeat Islamic militants, usher in a Middle East peace treaty or disarm North Korea, on these and other issues he has laid down some important groundwork. Most importantly, the global polls following his first overseas trip show he has begun restoring America's name and reputation, key ingredients to successful policy making.
Even before stepping onto foreign soil, Obama began by ordering the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention center closed, thus returning the United States to upholding the very same rule of law it preaches to other nations. He also has stated over and over again that "America does not torture," thus returning the United States to leading on human rights, not cherry-picking them.
To those such as former Vice President Dick Cheney who claims this will make America more vulnerable, even some former Bush administration officials now concede that rigorous but patient above-board interrogation has proven to yield better, more reliable intelligence than a rush to the waterboard.
Obama has kept a campaign pledge and given a fixed date for ending the unpopular U.S. war in Iraq. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," he announced.Yet the perils are clear. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed in Baghdad and other cities in a surge of sectarian violence since January. The Obama administration and U.S. military leaders are playing it down, blaming the suicide bombings on a few militant cells. That brings back memories of Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blaming a "handful of dead-enders" as the original insurgency was getting into full swing. Much work still needs to be done to stabilize Iraq militarily and politically.
Drawing down in Iraq means surging in Afghanistan, which along with Pakistan is still viewed as the central front on terror. "If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged," Obama said in March, "that country will again be a base for terrorists."
So he has ordered 21,000 new U.S. troops there by summer. But for all the talk of more boots on the ground, negotiating with moderate Taliban and beefing up Afghan security forces, danger will persist unless the Afghan people see more of a peace dividend. As Obama himself recognizes, "There will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan." Dire poverty still stalks the land and people desperate to feed their families will lay an IED for cash if they cannot farm or find a decent paying job. Although the Taliban had less than 8 percent support in Afghanistan at the end of 2007, according to an ABC poll, Afghan public opinion is turning against the U.S.-led coalition partly because of the rising number of civilian casualties as the U.S. military hunts down terrorists with airstrikes.
The same is happening in Pakistan. When unmanned drones and other airstrikes target militants but cost many civilian lives, it turns people against the United States. One month ago, President Obama unveiled an Afghan-Pakistan strategy for stabilizing the region, and yet things have gotten so much worse in the weeks since that now he, British officials and other world leaders openly fear the Talibanization of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
A furious Pakistan government accuses the United States of sowing panic among the people and insists it's in full control of its country and its nuclear arsenal. But it is hard to overdramatize the danger as this U.S. ally concedes land and appeases the Taliban, then watches as it reneges on a so-called "peace deal" and rolls ever closer to the capital, Islamabad. On May 6 and 7, Obama will be meeting in Washington with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the fight to deny the militants a tipping point momentum, the military tells me 2009 will be crucial.
As for Iran, which even two years ago candidate Obama said would be directly engaged by his administration, there is nothing formal yet between the two sides.
After 30 years of enmity, President Obama offered Iran "the promise of a new beginning" in a Persian New Year video message, and since then has clearly signaled the United States was over regime-change. The Iranian government and leadership have responded in kind, saying they are ready to engage with America if the administration is really committed to changing its Iran policy.
However, much of this good will has been over the airwaves and direct or back-channel talks have yet to start. Into this vacuum are stepping all the sundry pro- and anti-Iran interest groups, experts, analysts and nations, with their often-conflicting advice and sometimes confused understanding. Yet it is widely acknowledged that a strategic realignment with Iran would benefit U.S. and regional security and stability.
The new Israeli government wants to see no such thing, and wants people to believe it will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, a belief it fosters with background briefings to journalists in the United States and presumably elsewhere. In an ironic twist, Israel's Arab neighbors are bringing their dire warnings about Iran to the White House.
Meantime, Obama has named a new Middle East Peace envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, signaling he wants to take negotiations out of the deep freeze and committing to the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. Trouble is new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not signed on to the two-state solution and is trying to fend off this pressure, even suggesting Israel won't engage with the Palestinians until the United States takes care of Iran.
Last week, Obama told Jordan's King Hussein at the White House, "My hope would be that over the next several months you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides." He added, "We can't talk forever; at some point, steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground." The president has invited the leaders of Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to the White House in coming weeks.
The second hundred days in foreign policy will be filled with mini-summits at the White House and major summits abroad -- Russia in July and China sometime later.
With all this activity, Obama is clearly shifting the United States away from the "isolate and punish" policy of his predecessor. He is signaling that clearheaded meetings to discuss issues of mutual concern are better than hiding your head in the sand and hoping they'll go away. So amid the frothing and fulminating over Fidel, Hugo and Mahmoud, remember Nixon went to China

Obama's Second 100 days will be bigger test

As introductions go, it has been a fast-paced, fascinating first 100 days: an ambitious domestic agenda aimed at reinvigorating the economy and the government's reach into its workings, and several provocative steps on the world stage that, like at home, signal a clear break from the previous administration.

John King talks with President Obama in Peoria, Illinois.
It is the second 100 days that will give a much more comprehensive test of President Obama's approach, his resilience -- and his effectiveness.
Still, the White House cites significant accomplishments, including:
• Passage of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan.
• Signing into law an expanded children's health care program that it says provides benefits to 4 million additional working families.
• Signing the Ledbetter law requiring equal pay for women.
• Winning approval of a congressional budget resolution that puts Congress on record as dedicated to dealing with major health care reform legislation this year.
• Implementing new ethics guidelines designed to significantly curtail the influence of lobbyists on the executive branch.
• Breaking from the Bush administration on a number of international policy fronts, including climate change, while spelling out his plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq.
By the numbers, it is hard to not judge it as a strong start politically: The American people, for the most part, like their new president and see him as a leader. Nearly six in 10 Americans approve of how Obama is handling the economy, and hardly any blame the president for the country's economic struggles and challenges.

"I mean, it was basically left to him, you know. He didn't really do it, in my opinion," is what Chris Guynn told us when we visited him in Peoria, Illinois, just as he was told by Caterpillar that his job was being eliminated.
"But it's his problem now," Guynn said of Obama. It's a reminder that although he has broad public support and considerable patience from most Americans at the moment, Obama's political standing over time will be closely intertwined with the strength of the economy.
There are some warning signs found in the numbers and found repeatedly in our travels these past 100 days to 17 states and a diverse mix of communities, from rural Vermont and suburban New Jersey to the critical emerging battleground states of the South and Southwest.

Three to consider:
• Obama is perceived as a liberal, a word that is often more a liability than an asset in national politics.
• Nearly four in 10 Americans voice the concern that he is trying too much at once.
At our recent diner conversation in Park Ridge, New Jersey, teacher Peter Fitzgerald put it this way: "I would kind of worry about him burning out, too, because he's doing so much. Any time you look at the news, President Obama's doing this, he's got a million things going on. I understand that you have to attack the issues that are going on here, but I wonder some times if they are a little fearful he is going to run out of gas."
• If there are a few major stumbles and setbacks, the risk is that voters will question his leadership and governing skills.
"Keep an eye on this," veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart noted.
His core supporters are wary of two major Obama initiatives: taxpayer-funded bailout of big financial and auto companies, and his plan to significantly increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.
Several mayors we have visited in the past few months also grumble a bit that stimulus money is slow to trickle through the bureaucracy.
"So far, I haven't seen any of the stimulus money," Las Vegas, Nevada, Mayor Oscar Goodman said at his office this week. "I am told that we are going to get it. I think it will probably help us with our transportation. ... But we need it right now, because what we have to do is, we have to create jobs so that folks will be able to pay their mortgages and not lose their homes and be able to feed their families."

Asked to give Obama a grade at the 100-day mark, Goodman was for the most part complimentary.
"You've got to give credit where it's due, and I think that the president has been very aggressive in the programs that he is suggesting," the mayor said.
The assessments from more conservative quarters are, not surprisingly, very different.
Sen. John McCain, a rival in the presidential race, says Obama has not sought out genuine bipartisanship, a sentiment echoed by the Senate and House Republican leadership teams.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney infuriated the Obama White House with his assertion on "State of the Union" that Obama changes to Bush anti-terrorism policies have made the American people less safe.
And that debate continues to echo in squabbling over the release of Bush-era memos written to justify harsh interrogation tactics and the debate over whether some independent commission should be named to explore whether laws were broken in the prior administration.
Looking at the Obama domestic agenda, conservative columnist David Brooks framed things this way in a recent column in The New York Times:
"If Republicans aren't nervous, they should be. Obama is arguing for his activist agenda not on the basis of class consciousness, which is alien to America, but as a defense of middle-class morality, which is central to it. Obama is positioning the Democrats as the party of order, responsibility and small town values. If he pulls this mantle away from the Republicans, it would be the greatest train robbery in American politics."
The second 100 days will be a critical test of Obama's agenda and, if you agree with the framing of the stakes provided by Brooks, an equally important period for his critics.
Consider two of the big issues front and center in the next phase:
• Will Americans view health care reform as Obama argues: an overdue moral imperative that requires forceful government action and a strong government hand in reorganizing the marketplace? Or will critics succeed, as they did when the Clinton health care push went off the rails in 1993-94, in framing the argument as too expensive, too powerful government reach into the most personal of our affairs?
• Can Obama sell a new energy and environmental approach that includes more government efficiency and emission mandates as a generational calling and national security necessity? Or will opponents sway the debate by warning that the end result is higher energy taxes on working- and middle-class households, and choking mandates that will undermine U.S. manufacturers in the competitive global economy?
There are many other challenges that are opportunities for Obama to advance his agenda and redefine his party as well as the United States image on the world stage. But several of these opportunities could also emerge as tripwires.
Iraq and Afghanistan are inherited tests. But Obama has placed such a heavy fingerprint on these policies that success will bring him credit, but setbacks will leave no doubt where the responsibility lies.
Likewise, overtures to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela put to the test Obama's bold campaign promise to give dialogue a chance even, perhaps especially, with those nations with whom U.S. relations had turned most stagnated or contentious.

Blaming George W. Bush was an easy -- and often credible -- foil for Obama in his important first 100 days.
Not so much in the defining second 100.

Obama's economic remedies may face pushback at G20

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama will make his debut as president on the world stage next week with calls for global economies to use government spending to jumpstart growth and work on a reshaping of the chaotic financial system.
The U.S. president's popularity will likely elicit a warm greeting Europeans when he travels to London for the summit of the Group of 20 major economies on April 2. His remedies for fixing the world economy could face a chillier reception.
European leaders have made clear they will not heed the U.S. call for deficit spending and may prod the United States to move further and more quickly to tighten financial rules.
China has talked of a possible alternative to the U.S. dollar's status as a global reserve currency, in a signal of weakening confidence in America's economic leadership.
"The United States has been the champion of the open free-market global system and that is now under threat from various directions," said Reginald Dale, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"So it's really up to President Obama to step in and confirm that the United States is still the guardian of the global system," Dale said.
The Obama administration is touting its $787 billion economic stimulus plan as a model for what other countries could do. The global economy is expected to shrink this year for the first time since World War Two.
"No one can deny the urgency of action," Obama said this week in an opinion piece published in several newspapers abroad.
Obama urged "bold, comprehensive and coordinated action" among G20 countries to reignite growth but also said that countries should work together on regulatory reforms to ensure that they prevent a repeat of the financial catastrophe.
Britain, among the nations hardest hit by the crisis, has joined the U.S. calls for aggressive economic stimulus steps.
FRANCE, GERMANY
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have said more spending would not rescue the world economy and could create unsustainable deficits. They have urged an emphasis on tightening regulations, blaming lax oversight for the financial crisis.
One area where the leaders are likely to find common ground is bolstering the International Monetary Fund.
Analysts said the Obama administration is worried that imbalances in the world economy may be reinforced if the stimulus succeeds in reviving U.S. growth but economic activity overseas continues to sink. Such a scenario could spur lopsided consumer demand in the United States.
Still, experts said the G20 leaders were likely to play down their differences on issues like economic stimulus.

Obama is well regarded in much of Europe due to his left-leaning policies and rise as the first African-American U.S. president. It would seem unwise politically for European leaders to allow tensions to bubble to the surface.
Simon Johnson, a former IMF chief economist, said the summit was unlikely to bridge differences on the issue of fiscal stimulus.
"All of the stuff is so choreographed in advance that if they were going to have any agreement on something like that, you would see it coming," Johnson said.
But he said there could be agreement on regulatory issues, "not, I think, real substance or immediate changes but on the rhetorical level."
"The Americans have become more pro-regulation, even quite recently," Johnson said.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this week unveiled proposals for new oversight of hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds with assets above a certain level. Such funds are loosely regulated in the United States.
The move is in line with an anticipated European Union proposal.
Geithner has also called for a more systematic government approach to problems at financial institutions, including insurance companies such as American International Group, which are so large they can threaten the stability of the economy. (Reuters)

House ignores Obama's homebuilder tax break

NEW YORK - Democrats in the House of Representatives did not include in their budget proposal a request by President Barack Obama to expand a key tax break sought by struggling homebuilders
The provision under Obama's fiscal 2010 budget proposal would expand the "net operating loss carryback" window, which enables businesses to use recent losses to offset taxable profits from previous tax years.
Obama's budget did not offer specific details about how the break would apply or which businesses would qualify, but the revenue estimates suggest it would apply to all businesses and they could carry back losses from 2008 and 2009.
The builders almost succeeded in getting the expansion included in the $787 billion stimulus package approved last month, but Congress ultimately limited the break to small businesses with gross receipts of $15 million or less.
The National Association of Home Builders is actively lobbying for an expanded provision that would apply to businesses of any size, NAHB Chief Executive Jerry Howard told Reuters.