Barack Obama on Foreign Policy

Democratic incumbent President; IL Senator (2004-2008)

Make sure both allies and enemies know where we stand

Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief. You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just beat these challenges militarily, and so what I've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do, is:
  1. Make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts;
  2. Make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel's security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.
  3. Make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population--not just half of it--is developing.
  4. Develop their economic capabilities.
  5. Recognize that we can't continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we're doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need.
Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012

Every fact-checker concurs: I didn't apologize to Iran

ROMNEY: Iran looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. The president, in his campaign some four years ago, said he'd meet with all the world's worst actors. He'd sit down with Ahmadinejad of Iran. And then the president began what I've called an apology tour of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.

OBAMA: Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign, and every fact-checker and every reporter who's looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true. The strength that we have shown in Iran is shown by the fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. When I came into office, the world was divided. Iran was resurgent. Iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily, than in many years.

Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012

Prepare for global pandemics with global partners

Q: What steps should the US take to protect our population from emerging diseases, global pandemics and/or deliberate biological attacks?

A: Advancements in technology allow Americans to travel internationally with ease, and allow us to welcome individuals from around the world. This fluidity also requires that we, as a nation, are prepared to protect against them. I will continue to work to strengthen our systems of public health so we can stop disease from spreading across our borders. It is also important that should these threats breach our borders, our communities can respond quickly & effectively. Lastly, to help our country prepare to meet these challenges, we have been working with the private sector to assess potential vulnerabilities. I have no doubt that we can counter any threat we face, but we cannot face it alone. We must continue to work with our international partners, remain diligent in seeking out new threats, and prepare to act should a need arise.

Source: The Top American Science Questions, by sciencedebate.org , Sep 4, 2012

Avoid trap of military overstretch; that destroys countries

Obama looked ahead to a time when the US, with all its economic problems, might no longer be able to maintain predominance. He focused on redirecting America's resources and energy toward domestic renewal. His US would manage to work out a new, more modest international role in line with its new circumstances: its still awesome military power but diminishing economic power. The ideas underlying Obama's foreign policy were those of Paul Kennedy's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." Kennedy's great powers became overstretched in their military commitments yet were unable to give them up, and they eventually lost their dominant roles. This was the fate of Spain and the Netherlands in the 18th and 19th centuries and Britain and France in the 20th. Obama sought to avoid the trap into which these countries fell.
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p.251 , Jun 14, 2012

America is the one indispensable nation in world affairs

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us; where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs--and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way.

Source: 2012 State of the Union speech , Jan 24, 2012

Obama's international stances compared to Paul's

Do Obama and Paul disagree on the Patriot Act? (No; they both oppose it). Who would cut the defense budget more? (Not Obama!). We cite details from Paul's books and speeches, and Obama's, so you can compare them, side-by-side, on issues like these:

Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama on International Issues

Source: Paperback: Obama vs. Paul On The Issues , Jan 1, 2012

OpEd: Claims "poverty causes terrorism" but they're educated

Most suicide bombers are well-educated and have a generally higher socio-economic status. Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to cling to the "poverty causes terrorism" theory because it supports the social work approach to national security that it favors.

If the Obama administration were to admit that Islamic terrorists are not motivated by poverty but rather by an evil ideology, that would require a paradigm shift in the way it approaches terrorism. They'd have to admit the existence of evil, name the enemy, and acknowledge that military power rather than more anti-poverty programs must be the central means to fight and win.

Our president has made a bad habit of apologizing to foreign audiences for America's supposed transgressions. This groveling needs to end--now. The American president must proudly represent the world's greatest democracy to the world. It is naive to think these apologies gain us respect--they simply convey a dangerous lack of confidence.

Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.257-258 , Nov 15, 2010

OpEd: Life story gives him broad appeal beyond USA

Obama's story and it was predominantly his rhetoric, his manner and his oratory that persuaded people he was the right person for the job. There were other ingredients as well, including his background and the country's mood for change. His life-story gives him a broad appeal beyond the USA. More significantly, it has also provided Obama with a strong sense of self-reliance and self-belief. This life narrative is something that Obama often uses in his speeches, both formally and informally. By opening up about his personal background, engaging and reassuring people, he helps himself connect with his audience. Obama's personal story was memorably invoked at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention, when he first came to national prominence, with the words: "I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible."
Source: The 100 Greatest Speeches, by Kourdi & Maier, p.196-197 , Mar 3, 2010

OpEd: American Apology Tour: disliking USA understandable

Pres. Obama is well on his way toward engineering a dramatic shift in American foreign policy. He envisions America as a nation whose purpose is to arbitrate disputes rather than to advocate ideals, a country consciously seeking equidistance between allies and adversaries. Obama has positioned himself as a figure transcending America instead of defending America.

This sentiment manifests itself in several different ways, including Pres. Obama's American Apology Tour. Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his ways of signaling that foreign dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable. There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; Obama's words are kindling to them. In his first nine months in office, Obama has issued apologies and criticism of America in speeches in France, England, Turkey, and Cairo.

Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p. 25 , Mar 2, 2010

I do not accept 2nd place for the USA

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations--they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America.

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010

2005: The Plan: build credibility with travel abroad

Unlike Clinton, whose national profile was already as capacious as it could get before she arrived in the Senate, Obama wanted to take advantage of his newfound prominence to build a larger brand. His staff was fielding 300 speaking invitations a week. Grassroots liberal activists, conservative columnists, and his party's leadership all wanted a piece of him.

His advisers developed a strategic plan to capitalize on this outsize interest. The plan--which Rouse and the rest ingeniously dubbed "The Plan"--called for Obama to dive neck-deep into fundraising for his Senate colleagues. (They'll be coming to you anyway, Rouse told him, so you might as well volunteer.) To give major speeches on national policy: energy, education, economics. To travel abroad as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to build his credibility on international affairs. To expand his political horizons aggressively and systematically. Obama put his shoulder to the wheel.

Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p. 27-28 , Jan 11, 2010

2008 World Tour: Iraq, Germany, Afghanistan, Israel

Obama's World Tour included a sprawling itinerary that would have posed real challenges to a sitting president and his team. Eight countries in ten days, including two war zones: Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq on the first leg; Jordan, Israel, Germany, France, & England on the second. And yet the Obamans miraculously pulled it off without a hitch. The pictures beamed around the world were priceless: Obama visiting an army base and effortlessly sinking a three-point shot in front of hundreds of cheering soldiers; Obama in a helicopter with General Petraeus, both in sunglasses and grinning like mad; the soaring speech in front of two hundred thousand at the Victory Column in Berlin; the interview with each of the broadcast network anchors, who had tagged along for the trip.

The reaction of the McCain campaign was unambiguous. It went on the attack. It released an ad unveiling the campaign's slogan, "Country First," with its insinuation that Obama put something else (i.e. his ambition) above the nation.

Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p.329 , Jan 11, 2010

The UN has succeeded in avoiding a Third World War

With the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the US Senate rejected the League of Nations--an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize--America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

Source: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway , Dec 10, 2009

FactCheck: Campaign prevented committee meetings, not rules

Obama said that he did not convene any policy hearings as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs because “the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole.”

FACT CHECK: An Obama adviser acknowledged in March that Obama’s presidential candidacy prevented him from calling hearings, saying to ABC News: “The record is what it is. He didn’t become chairman of that subcommittee until January of 2007. The fact is that he made his announcement for president of the US in February of 2007. So, he had other things on his mind.”

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 first presidential debate-Boston Globe , Sep 26, 2008

Global Poverty Act: spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid

As the Democratic primaries were winding down in May 2008, Obama quietly steered his Global Poverty Act, known as S. 2433, through the Senate. Obama likes to characterize S. 2433 as requiring "the president to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs (non-governmental organizations)." Obama clearly hopes he will be in his second term as president by then, so reduction of global poverty by half can be tracked back to his co-sponsorship of this visionary piece of legislation.

Critics on the right, who were anything but enthusiastic, sarcastically renamed the bill the "Global Poverty Tax." The legislation "would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.250 , Aug 1, 2008

In Cold War, we won hearts & minds; now do same to world

This is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instea they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust--not just from the people of Berlin, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember. Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?

People of Berlin--people of the world--this is our moment. This is our time.

Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.269-70 , Jul 24, 2008

Dangers of intertwined world can’t be contained in borders

The 21st century has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers--dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.264-5 , Jul 24, 2008

OpEd: Policy views based on experience in Kenya & Indonesia

Obama is a descendant of Kenya, and is very aware of the unjust governmental practices inherited from the colonial British. He saw his father's successful career, as a diplomat and finance expert in Kenya, evaporate because his father would not support an unjust dictator.

As a youth Obama moved to Indonesia, another former colony, and watched again as his [stepfather's] career was virtually destroyed because he was at odds with the ruling elite.

Source: Obamanomics, by John R. Talbott, p. 39 , Jul 1, 2008

Important to undo the damage of the last seven years

The Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago. If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. It’s important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin , Feb 21, 2008

Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate

As commander-in-chief, all of us would have a responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s our first responsibility. I would not hesitate to strike against anybody who would do Americans or American interests’ harm. What I do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign policy that says, for example, I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies, because I remember what Kennedy said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. Having that kind of posture is the way we effectively debate the Republicans on this issue. Because if we just play into the same fear-mongering that they have been engaged in since 9/11, then we are playing on their battlefield, but, more importantly, we are not doing what’s right in order to rebuild our alliances, repair our relationships around the world, and actually make us more safe in the long term.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008

President must abide by international human rights treaties

Q: Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

A: It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007

Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality

Q: How will future historians describe your foreign policy doctrine?

A: The Obama Doctrine is not going to be as doctrinaire as the Bush Doctrine because the world is complicated. Bush’s ideology has overridden facts and reality. That means that if there are children in the Middle East who cannot read, that is a potential long-term danger to us. If China is polluting, then eventually that is going to reach our shores. We have to work with them cooperatively to solve their problems as well as ours.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007

No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty

Obama’s failure to condemn all military action has led to criticism from some on the left. One critic noted: “He accepts the Bush Doctrine. He accepts the doctrine of preemptive strikes.”

The key part of the Bush Doctrine is the focus on unilateral action and the use of force to spread democracy around the world. And the worst part of the Bush administration is not the Bush Doctrine but Bush’s implementation of it.

As Obama famously declared in 2002, he did not oppose all wars, but he did oppose a “dumb war.” Isolationism must not be the reaction to a dumb president and a dumb war.

There is no Obama Doctrine because Obama is not a doctrinaire kind of leader who operates according to fixed policies. Instead, Obama believes in a set of principle (democracy, security, liberty) for the world and tries to come up with practical measures for incrementally increasing US security and global freedom. He rejects isolationism and he tries to steer clear of unilateralism.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.117-118 , Oct 30, 2007

$50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse

Barack Obama believes that strengthening weak states at risk of collapse, economic meltdown or public health crises strengthens America’s security. Obama will double U.S. spending on foreign aid to $50 billion a year by 2012.

He will help developing countries invest in sustainable democracies and demand more accountability in return. Obama will establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to eliminate the global education deficit. He will reduce the debt of developing nations and better coordinate trade and development policies.

Obama also will reestablish U.S. moral leadership by respecting civil liberties; ending torture; restoring habeas corpus; making the U.S. electoral processes fair and transparent and fighting corruption at home.

Source: 2008 Presidential campaign website, BarackObama.com “Flyers” , Aug 26, 2007

No “strategic ambiguity” on foreign policy issues

Q: [to Clinton]: You said Sen. Obama’s views on meeting with foreign dictators are “naive and irresponsible.”

CLINTON: A president should not telegraph to our adversaries that you’re willing to meet with them without preconditions.

OBAMA: Strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries. We shouldn’t be afraid to do so. We’ve tried the other way. It didn’t work.

Q: [to Dodd]: You’ve called Sen. Obama’s views “confusing & confused, dangerous & irresponsible.”

DODD: I disagreed with Obama on a hypothetical solution that raised serious issues within Pakistan. I thought it was irresponsible to engage in that kind of a suggestion. That’s dangerous.

OBAMA: We should describe for the American people in presidential debates & in the presidency, what our foreign policy is and what we’re going to do. We shouldn’t have strategic ambiguity with the American people when it comes to describing how we’re going to deal with our most serious national security issues.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week” , Aug 19, 2007

My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster

Q: [to Dodd]: You said that Sen. Obama’s “assertions about foreign and military affairs have been confusing and confused.” You added, “He should not be making unwise categorical statements about military options.” What in your opinion has been confusing?

DODD: Words mean things. When you raise issues about Pakistan, understand that while General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, but he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country.

OBAMA: I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize & engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism. Sen. Dodd obviously didn’t read my speech. Because what I said was that we have to refocus, get out of Iraq, make certain that we are helping Pakistan deal with the problem of al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007

Meet with enemy leaders; it’s a disgrace that we have not

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.

CLINTON: I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC , Jul 23, 2007

We cannot afford isolationism

We cannot afford isolationism--not only because our work with respect to stabilizing Iraq is not complete but because our missteps in Iraq have distracted us from the larger threat of terrorism, a threat that we can only meet by working in cooperation with other countries.

We risk a further increase in isolationist sentiment unless both the administration and Congress can restore the American people’s confidence that our foreign policy is driven by facts and reason, rather than hopes and ideology.

Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 74-75 , Mar 27, 2007

Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead

American leadership has been a mighty force for human progress. The steady march of democracy and free enterprise across the globe speaks to the steadfastness of our leadership and the power of our ideals. Today we face new and frightful challenges, especially the threat of terror. Never has it been more important for American to lead wisely, to shrewdly project power and wield influence on behalf of liberty and security. Unfortunately, I fear our once great influence is waning, a victim of misguided policies and impetuous actions. Never has the US possessed so much power, and never has the US had so little influence to lead.

We still have the chance to correct recent missteps that have put our principles and legacy in question. Indeed, it is imperative to our nation’s standing and security to do so. It will take a change of attitude and direction in our national leadership to restore the values and judgment that made and kept our nation the world’s beacon of hope and freedom.

Source: Speech to Chicago Council on Foreign Relations , Jul 12, 2004

US policy should promote democracy and human rights

In every region of the globe, our foreign policy should promote traditional American ideals: democracy and human rights; free and fair trade and cultural exchanges; and development of institutions that ensure broad middle classes within market economies.

It is our commonality of interests in the world that can ultimately restore our influence and win back the hearts and minds necessary to defeat terrorism and project American values around the globe. Human aspirations are universal-for dignity, for freedom, for the opportunity to improve the lives of our families.

Let us recognize what unites us across borders and build on the strength of this blessed country. Let us embrace our history and our legacy. Let us not only define our values in words and carry them out in deeds.

Source: Speech to Chicago Council on Foreign Relations , Jul 12, 2004

Barack Obama on Africa

Dressed in Africa in traditional garb, not "Muslim attire"

The infamous photograph of Obama in African garb was originally published by Afrika Online on Sept. 1, 2006. The photo shows Obama dressed as a Somali elder. The photo is authentic; it was taken during Obama's visit to a rural area in northeastern Kenya. There is little doubt Obama wore the Somali elder garb, but we can easily find dozens of photos of U.S. politicians wearing local costume during overseas travel.

On February 4, 2008, the tabloid National Enquirer published the photo in an article that asserted Obama was wearing "Muslim attire" on a trip to Kenya. The Obama campaign decried the National Enquirers sensationalism, arguing that Obama was dressed in traditional tribal garb, not "Muslim attire," much as Pres. Bush might take on traditional native costumes when meeting in foreign countries. The Obama campaign was right: Somalia is almost entirely Sunni Muslim, so in that sense the Somali elder garb would of course be Islamic.

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p. 94 , Aug 1, 2008

Majored in international affairs based on living abroad

Q: Why did you major in international affairs?

A: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy--it was natural for me, to be interested in international affairs.

The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn’t formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.

The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008

Moral obligation to intervene in Darfur to avoid spillover

Q: What about Darfur? You’ve called for a UN no-fly zone, but the Chinese and the Russians will probably not go along with it, so it’d be a US or NATO no-fly zone.

A: In a situation like Darfur, I think that the world has a self-interest in ensuring that genocide is not taking place on our watch. Not only because of the moral and ethical implications, but also because chaos in Sudan ends up spilling over into Chad. It ends up spilling over into other parts of Africa, can end up being repositories of terrorist activity. Those are all things that we’ve got to pay attention to. And if we have enough nations that are willing--particularly African nations, and not just Western nations--that are willing to intercede in an effective, coherent way, then I think that we need to act.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008

Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M

Obama wrote the law signed in 2006 that provided $52 million in US assistance to help stabilize the Congo, and he worked to approve $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission. Obama also worked with Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), writing an op-ed in the Washington Post criticizing the Bush administration’s failure to stop genocide in Darfur.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.160 , Oct 30, 2007

Increased aid to Republic of Congo

[Obama had planned his trip to Africa since 2005]. Conversations I had with Obama along the 2004 campaign trail made it abundantly clear that the atrocities of Darfur’s civil war were a deep source of concern for him. Also, as a senator, Obama was successful in passing an amendment to a 2006 Iraqi spending bill that increased aid to the Republic of Congo.

The 15-day trip to Africa was organized to include visits to 5 countries, but the bulk of the journey was to be spent in South Africa and then Kenya. After Kenya, Obama had planned brief visits to the Congo, Djibouti and the Darfur region of Sudan, site of the bloody conflict that was killing thousands of Sudanese a month and displacing millions more.

But Kenya, the homeland of his father, was the physical and emotional centerpiece of the trip. Kenyans had adopted him as one of their own, and had made him a living folk hero in the East African nation.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.322-323 , Aug 14, 2007

Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight

[Obama’s African trip] would take us to one of the bleakest places on the planet. Kibera is recognized as the largest single slum in all of Africa, and thus in all the world. Over 700,000 impoverished souls are packed into a tract of urban land that is just 2.5 square kilometers. Situated in the southwest quadrant of Nairobi, Kibera was first settled extensively in the 1920s by an ethnic group called Nubians.

Many residents lacked basic services, such as clean running water and plumbing. Sewage and garbage were dumped into the open; dwellings were made of canvas and tin with corrugated roofing; and some children appeared less than fully nourished.

The inhabitants, however, were positively gleeful at Obama’s visit. Obama grabbed a bullhorn. “Everybody in Kibera needs the same opportunities to go to school, to start businesses, to have enough to eat, to have decent clothes,” he told the residents, who madly cheered his words. “I wants to make sure everybody in America knows Kibera.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.367-369 , Aug 14, 2007

No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa

Q: Darfur is the second time that our nation has had a chance to do something about genocide in Africa. The first came in Rwanda in 1994, when we did nothing.

RICHARDSON: What I would like to do is, one, a no-fly zone. Get economic sanctions backed by the Europeans; we should use the levers on China. We need to find ways to stop the massive rapes.

OBAMA: The no-fly zone is important. Having the protective force is critical. But we have to look at Africa not just after a crisis happens; what are we doing with respect to trade opportunities with Africa? What are we doing in terms of investment in Africa? What are we doing to pay attention to Africa consistently with respect to our foreign policy? That has been what’s missing in the White House. Our long-term security is going to depend on whether we’re giving children in Sudan and Zimbabwe and in Kenya the same opportunities so that they have a stake in order as opposed to violence and chaos.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007

U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur

The United States should raise the needed funds to ensure that the civilians in Sudan receive life saving humanitarian assistance. We should lead in contributing the lion’s share of these funds so that we can convince others to give their fair share as well--the United States should support the immediate deployment of an effective international force to disarm militias, protect civilians, and facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur.
Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 26 , Mar 27, 2007

Protested South African apartheid while at college

[While at college in the ‘80s] Obama became involved in the movement to demand that colleges divest themselves of financial interests that helped support apartheid in South Africa.

At a rally, Obama rose to speak in public for the first time: “There is a struggle going on. It is happening an ocean away. But it is a struggle that touches each and every one of us... a struggle that demands we choose sides. Not between black & white. Not between rich & poor. No, it is a choice between dignity & servitude. Between fairness & injustice. Between commitment & indifference. A choice between right & wrong.“

By prearrangement, he was dragged off by students dressed as soldiers to dramatize the lack of rights in South Africa. He did not want to give up the microphone. The audience was ”clapping and cheering, and I knew that I had them, that the connection had been made. I really wanted to stay up there, to hear my voice bouncing off the crowd and returning back to me in applause. I had so much left to say.

Source: Hopes and Dreams, by Steve Dougherty, p. 58-59 , Feb 15, 2007

Focus on corruption to improve African development

During Obama’s trip to Kenya, at an Aug. 28 2006 speech in Nairobi, he stung some Kenyan officials enough that they sent Obama a scathing official complaint, because Obama pointedly encouraged Kenyan officials to do more to fight corruption:
Like many nations across this continent, where Kenya is failing is in its ability to create a government that is transparent and accountable One that serves its people and is free from corruption. The reason I speak of the freedom you fought so hard to win is because today that freedom is in jeopardy. It is being threatened by corruption.

Corruption is not a new problem. It’s not just a Kenyan problem, or an African problem. It’s a human problem, and it has existed in some form in almost every society. My own city of Chicago has been the home of some of the most corrupt local politics in American history. But while corruption is a problem we all share, here in Kenya it is a crisis that’s robbing an honest people of opportunities.
Source: Should Barack Obama Be President?, by Fred Zimmerman, p.29 , Oct 17, 2006

Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research

Pro’s and Con’s: Obama visited African in 2006 and went to South Africa, Chad, and Kenya.

Pro: He is a mensch. Here on a few things he did on his summer vacation:

Con: Who cares? It is Africa. If we are going to go with a President from a non-European background, let’s go with one whose relatives are from a country whose friendship will help us, like China or India.

Pro: Kenyans love him.

Con: Who cares? It’s Kenya.

Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 27-28 , Oct 17, 2006

Barack Obama on Americas

Focus on BRICs: Brazil, Russia, India, China, & South Africa

Early on, the Obama administration seemed to embrace a new concept: Its diplomacy would emphasize 4 emerging economic powers called the BRICs, or Brazil, Russia, India & China. (Later on, South Africa was sometimes added as a 5th country, conveniently taking up the letter S.) The idea originally came from Wall Street: In 2001, a Goldman-Sachs economist invented the concept of the BRICs to describe the 4 emerging economies that he believed would play an increasingly important role in the world markets. By 2009, the term had become an addition to the jargon of foreign policy, and the Obama team began to talk about the importance of the BRICs in their speeches. In her first major speech as secretary of state, Clinton said that the Obama administration, while reinvigorating its traditional alliances, "will also put special emphasis on encouraging major emerging global powers--China, India, Russia & Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia & South Africa--to be full partners in tackling the global agenda."
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p.174 , Jun 14, 2012

Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests

Q: [to Clinton]: Would you meet with Raul Castro or not?

CLINTON: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening.

Q: [to Obama]: Presumably you would be willing to meet?

A: That’s correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the US & Cuba after over half a century. I would meet without preconditions, although Sen. Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda [including] human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time. But I do think that it’s important for the US not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that’s where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin , Feb 21, 2008

Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later

Q: Do you support normalizing relations with Cuba now?

A: As a show of good faith that we’re interested in pursuing a new relationship, I’ve called for a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some progress.

Q: But that’s different from your position back in 2003, when you called US policy toward Cuba a miserable failure.

A: I support the eventual normalization. And it’s absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. During my entire lifetime, Cuba has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms. So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that’s going to happen in steps.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin , Feb 21, 2008

Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il & Hugo Chavez

Q: In July, you were asked if you were willing to meet separately without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez. You said yes. You stand by that?

A: I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I’d be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won’t meet with people unless they’ve already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, “We won’t meet with you until you’ve agreed to all the terms that we’ve laid out,” from their perspective that’s not a negotiation, that’s not a meeting.

Q: You’re not afraid of being used in a propaganda way?

A: You know, strong countries and strong presidents speak with their adversaries. I always think back to JFK’s saying that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we shouldn’t fear to negotiate.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Nov 11, 2007

Invest in our relationship with Mexico

Making sure that we are investing in our relationship with Mexico so that people in Mexico feel as if they can raise a family and have a good life on the other side of the border is going to be critical; making certain that we have strong border security is important; a pathway to citizenship is something that I’ve been committed to since I came to the US Senate.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on Univision in Spanish , Sep 9, 2007

Barack Obama on Asia

Pivot to East Asia; America is a Pacific power

ROMNEY: We can be a partner with China. Now, they look at us and say, is it a good idea to be with America? How strong are we going to be? How strong is our economy? They look at the fact that we owe them $1 trillion and owe other people $16 trillion. They look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities--a trillion dollars. They look at America's commitments around the world and they see what's happening and they say, well, OK, is America going to be strong? And the answer is yes. If I'm president, America will be very strong.

OBAMA: When it comes to our military and Chinese security, part of the reason that we were able to pivot to the Asia-Pacific region after having ended the war in Iraq and transitioning out of Afghanistan, is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. And we believe China can be a partner, but we're also sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power, that we are going to have a presence there.

Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012

We pushed China hard to raise currency exchange by 11%

ROMNEY: On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator.

OBAMA: As far as currency manipulation, [China's] currency has actually gone up 11 percent since I've been president because we have pushed them hard. And we've put unprecedented trade pressure on China. That's why exports have significantly increased under my presidency. That's going to help to create jobs here.

Q: Apple iPhones are all manufactured in China. How do you convince Apple to bring that manufacturing back here?

ROMNEY: The answer is very straightforward. We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China's been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There's even an Apple store in China that's a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis.

Source: Second Obama-Romney 2012 debate , Oct 16, 2012

OpEd: North Korean behavior under Bush same as under Obama

Recent history with North Korea was a pretty effective guide to how they would behave. They signed the Agreed Framework in 1994 during the Clinton administration and immediately began violating its terms, demanding payment and looking for ways to use the negotiations to blackmail the United States.

They behaved the same way with us and have brought out all their threats and demands again for the Obama administration. They have learned now, through Republican and Democratic administrations, that this is an effective way to operate. It yields concessions from the West while they continue to develop nuclear weapons. I hope a future president and secretary of state will break the cycle. This is particularly important because in the area of nonproliferation, as in so much else, the United States must lead. If we do not hold the line, few others will.

Source: In My Time, by V.P. Dick Cheney, p.493 , Aug 30, 2011

2007: Pledged to meet with leaders of Iran & North Korea

In a June 2007 debate in South Carolina she again drew a sharp contrast with Obama when he unexpectedly pledged that, as president, he would willingly meet with the leaders of such rogue nations as Iran and North Korea without preconditions during his first term in office. "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leasers of these countries during my first year." Clinton interjected. "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

This looked like another Obama gaffe. The following day, her campaign recruited former secretary of state Madeleine Albright to lead the attack against Obama. During a telephone interview, she launched a personal attack on Obama, [saying], "I thought he was irresponsible and frankly naive."

Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p. 83-84 , Aug 4, 2009

2007: Raids into Pakistan to kill high-value terrorists

On August 8, 2007 in Chicago, the day after the fifth debate, hosted by the AFL-CIO, Obama had come under fire for his foreign policy statements over the last three weeks, beginning with the CNN-YouTube debate in South Carolina. In a speech, he had made an implied threat to mount cross-border raids into Pakistan by U.S. soldiers if actionable intelligence showed there was a chance to capture or kill "High-value terrorist targets." He stumbled over considering nuclear weapons to fight terrorism there. In Chicago, his opponents were instantly on the attack. Chris Dodd called Obama "highly irresponsible." Clinton said it was "a very big mistake to telegraph that and destabilize" the Pakistani government.

Obama fired back, but clearly he and his campaign had been put on the defensive. The exchanges bolstered the continuing story line. He wasn't seasoned enough to be president.

Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p. 89 , Aug 4, 2009

We must be tough with Pakistan & stop coddling Musharraf

McCAIN: I’m not prepared to threaten Pakistan, as Sen. Obama wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

OBAMA: If the US has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out. I think that’s the right strategy; I think that’s the right policy. This is not an easy situation. You’ve got cross-border attacks against US troops. We’ve got a choice. We could allow our troops to be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we start making some decisions. And the problem with the strategy that’s been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator.” As a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. That’s going to change when I’m president.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain , Sep 26, 2008

Must be tough on Iran, but talk to them too

Q: How big a threat is Iran to the US?

A: Ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. What we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So our policy over the last eight years has not worked. We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also set off an arms race in the Middle East.

We are going to have to engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain , Sep 26, 2008

Learned privilege of being American by living in Indonesia

Q: What is your first memory of a foreign policy event that shaped your life?

A: Well, it wasn’t so much an event--my first memory was my mother coming to me and saying, “I’ve remarried this man from Indonesia, and we’re moving to Jakarta on the other side of the world.” And that’s my first memory of understanding how big the world was. This was only a year after an enormous coup. But it was for me, as a young boy, a magical place. And I think that probably is when it first enters into my consciousnes that this is a big world. There are a lot of countries, a lot of cultures. It’s a complicated place.

Q: But you were an American in Indonesia. How did that make you feel?

A: Well, it made me realize what an enormous privilege it is to be an American. [Not just] the gap in the wealth. It was also becoming aware that the generals in Indonesia were living in lavish mansions, and the sense that government wasn’t always working for the people, but was working for insiders.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008

China is a competitor but not an enemy

Q: Given China’s size, its muscular manufacturing capabilities, its military buildup, at this point--and also including its large trade deficit--at this point, who has more leverage, China or the U.S.?

A: Number one is we’ve got to get our own fiscal house in order. Number two, when I was visiting Africa, I was told by a group of businessmen that the presence of China is only exceeded by the absence of America in the entire African continent. Number three, we have to be tougher negotiators with China. They are not enemies, but they are competitors of ours. Right now the United States is still the dominant superpower in the world. But the next president can’t be thinking about today; he or she also has to be thinking about 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from now.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate , Dec 13, 2007

U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China

The U.S. should be firm on issues that divide us like Taiwan while flexible on issues that could unite us. We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses but without triggering a trade war as prolonged instability in the Chinese economy could have global economic consequences.
Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 22 , Mar 27, 2007

Barack Obama on Europe

Deal with Russia: no new missile defense in Eastern Europe

Within weeks of being sworn in as president of the United States, Obama sent a top official to Moscow to hand deliver a secret letter to Russia's then-President Dmitry Medvedev. The secret letter said that Obama "would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would stop Iran from developing long-range weapons."

Not surprisingly, Putin was ecstatic: "The latest decision by President Obama has positive implications," said Putin. "I very much hope that this very right and brave decision will be followed by others."

The Obama administration made the decision to throw our friends Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus and leave them naked to missile attacks "despite having no public guarantees" that Moscow would help crack down on Iran's missile programs.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 94-95 , Dec 5, 2011

We’ve been reactive for 8 years; be proactive with Russia

Part of the job of the next commander-in-chief, in keeping all of you safe, is making sure that we can see some of the 21st Century challenges and anticipate them before they happen.

We haven’t been doing enough of that. We tend to be reactive. That’s what we’ve been doing over the last eight years. That’s part of what happened in Afghanistan, where we rushed into Iraq and Sen. McCain and President Bush suggested that it wasn’t that important to catch bin Laden right now and that we could muddle through, and that has cost us dearly.

We’ve got to be much more strategic if we’re going to be able to deal with all of the challenges that we face out there.

Regarding Russia: Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia. If we can reduce our energy consumption, that reduces the amount of petro dollars that they have to make mischief around the world. That will strengthen us and weaken them when it comes to issues like Georgia.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain , Oct 7, 2008

Recent Russian actions in Georgia are unacceptable

Q: How do you see the US relationship with Russia?

A: Our entire Russian approach has to be evaluated, because an aggressive Russia is a threat to the stability of the region. Their actions in Georgia were unacceptable. It is critical for the next president to follow through on our six-point cease-fire. It is important that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower and act like a 20th-century dictatorship.

We also have to affirm the fledgling democracies in that region--the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Poles, the Czechs. They are members of NATO. To countries like Georgia & Ukraine, we have to say they are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements.

We also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation. This is an area where I’ve led in the Senate, working to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain , Sep 26, 2008

In Berlin: proud citizen of US; fellow citizen of the world

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

People of the world--look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

People of the world--look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.262-3 , Jul 24, 2008

Cooperation among nations is not a choice; it’s the only way

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth--that Europeans today are bearing new burdens; and that America still sacrifices greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more--not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.265 , Jul 24, 2008

Chairs European subcommittee; could hold Afghanistan hearing

Q: If you believe Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror, why didn’t you hold a single hearing as chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the fighting force there?

A: Actually, the subcommittee that I chair is the European subcommittee. And any issues related to Afghanistan were always dealt with in the full committee, precisely because it’s so important. That’s not a matter that you would deal with in a subcommittee setting.

Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Jul 22, 2008

Engage Russia regarding nuclear proliferation

Q: John McCain has talked about a new G-8 which would expel Russia.

A: It would be a mistake. Look, if we’re going to do something about nuclear proliferation--just to take one issue--we’ve got to have Russia involved. The amount of loose nuclear material that’s floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain--without Russia’s cooperation, our efforts on that front will be greatly weakened.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008

Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats

Barack Obama will restore America’s leadership abroad, reform and enhance international organizations and strengthen our alliances. He will strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats, forge a new and lasting framework for collective security in Asia, and work with other countries around the world to combat global climate change.
Source: 2008 Presidential campaign website, BarackObama.com “Flyers” , Aug 26, 2007

Barack Obama on Mideast

Libyans marching FOR America means we've been successful

Q: Your opinion on the Benghazi attack?

ROMNEY: With the Arab Spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation. But instead we've seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events.

OBAMA: With respect to Libya, [I said that] we would go after those who killed Americans, and we would bring them to justice. But I think it's important to step back and think about what happened in Libya. Now, keep in mind that I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to--without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq--liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans. And as a consequence, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying, "America's our friend. We stand with them." Now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of.

Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012

I stand by "time for Mubarak to go" in Egyptian Revolution

Q: During the Egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for President Mubarak to go. Some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that. Do you have any regrets about that?

OBAMA: No, I don't because I think that America has to stand with democracy. But now that you have a democratically elected government in Egypt, they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities--and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that--to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region. These countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us.

Q: [to Romney]: Would you have stuck with Mubarak?

ROMNEY: No, I supported the president's action there. I wish we'd have had a better vision of the future.

Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012

Partner with Arab Spring countries to work toward democracy

[After the riots attacking American embassies], there is a larger issue, and that is what's going to be happening in the Arab Spring as these countries transition from dictatorship to democracy. And we cannot replace the tyranny of a dictator with the tyranny of a mob. And so my message to the Presidents of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and these other countries is, we want to be a partner with you, we will work with you, and we stand on the side of democracy, but democracy is not just an election; it's also, are you looking out for minority rights, are you respecting freedom of speech, are you treating women fairly.

All these issues are ones that the region is going to wrestle with. The one thing we can't do is withdraw from the region, because the US continues to be the one indispensable nation. And even countries where the US is criticized, they still want our leadership. And so we're going to continue to work in these regions.

Source: Obama-Romney interviews by Univision Noticias (Spanish News) , Sep 19, 2012

Engage with Iran; but combat Al Qaeda in Pakistan

One important influence upon the new administration's thinking was Lee Hamilton. Hamilton had served as a back-channel adviser to the Obama presidential campaign, both through his former aides and in private talks with Obama himself. The Obama aides who had previously worked for Hamilton felt the men shared a common worldview, a general sense of the limits of American power. Hamilton had long been a proponent of a policy of engagement with Iran. Separately, however, he had also favored intensive US military strikes into Pakistan to combat al-Qaeda. Both of these positions became key points on which Obama, as a candidate, had sought to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton. After Obama was elected president, these ideas on Iran and Pakistan eventually became among the most prominent and distinctive aspects of the new administration's foreign policy.
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p.150 , Jun 14, 2012

$1.8B per year for mega-embassy in Iraq; same in Afghanistan

The immense city-within-a-city "embassy" in Baghdad not only remains, but its cost is also to rise under Obama to $1.8 billion a year, from an estimated $1.5 billion in Bush's last year. The Obama administration is also constructing mega-embassies in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are completely without precedent. Throughout the Gulf region, billions are spent to develop "critical base & port facilities," along with military training & arms shipments expanding the US global system of militarization.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 63 , Jun 1, 2010

Hamas election void until they renounce violence

Obama repeated the familiar reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas: "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the Quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN) has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements."

Also near-universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Hamas has called for a 2-state settlement in the terms of international consensus: publicly and repeatedly. Israel and the US object that the Hamas proposals do not go far enough. Perhaps so, but they surely go much farther toward the international consensus than the firm and unwavering US-Israeli rejectionist stance, reiterated obliquely by Obama in his State Department talk.

Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.254-255 , Jun 1, 2010

Iran is more isolated and will face growing consequences

Diplomatic efforts have strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions--sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations: They, too, will face growing consequences.
Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010

Fundamental commitment to strong US-Israel relationship

Jesse Jackson, speaking before a World Policy Forum in France, suggested that an Obama presidency would put an end to excessive "Zionist" influence in American foreign policy. In a subsequent "clarification," Jackson repudiated the column and confirmed that he "has never had a conversation with Sen. Obama about Israel or the Middle East."

Obama's camp was again forces to issue a strong denial: "Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. is not an adviser to the Obama campaign and is therefore in no position to interpret or share Barack Obama's views on Israel and foreign policy. As he has made clear throughout his career and throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and he is advised by people like Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Senator Joe Biden who share that commitment."

Source: What Obama Means, by Jabari Asim, p.200-202 , Jan 20, 2009

Kissinger agrees with me on meeting with enemy leaders

McCAIN: Throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika, or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions.

OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran--guess what--without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCAIN: My friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years. And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody’s talking about that.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain , Sep 26, 2008

FactCheck: Kissinger opposes presidential meetings with Iran

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations “without preconditions.” To do so with Iran, McCain said, “isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous.” Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger--a McCain adviser--agreed with him.

So who’s right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran--without conditions. On Sept. 20 Kissinger said, “I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level... I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.”

After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn’t favor a presidential meeting, saying, “I would not recommend the next President engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.”

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 first Presidential debate , Sep 26, 2008

My record on Israel is same as McCain’s

Q: You’re heading to Israel next?

A: Yes.

Q: According to a recent poll out of Jerusalem, Israeli Jews favor John McCain for President 43% to 20%. Why do you think that’s the case?

A: Well, I’m not as well known as John McCain. I think that’s obviously a factor. And, you know, I think, understandably, Israelis are very interested in making sure that whoever takes the White House is absolutely committed to their security, regardless of other issues. And they know John McCain. He’s been there. Despite the fact that my record is as strong as John McCain’s on all the issues related to Israeli security, people just don’t know me as well. That’s part of the reason why we’re gonna spend a day visiting there in discussions and hopefully give people confidence that I have a track record that will assure not only the people of Israel, but friends of Israel back home, that, in fact, Israel’s security is paramount.

Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Jul 22, 2008

Appropriate for Israel to take out Syrian nuclear reactor

Q: How likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

A: I will not hypothesize on that. I think Israel has a right to defend itself. But I will not speculate on the difficult judgment that they would have to make in a whole host of possible scenarios.

Q: This is not a speculative question then. Was it appropriate, in your view, for Israel to take out that suspected Syrian nuclear site last year?

A: Yes. I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing a site using a nuclear or using a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model. There was some concern as to what the rationale for that site would be. And, again, ultimately, I think these are decisions that the Israelis have to make. But, you know, the Israelis live in a very tough neighborhood where a lot of folks, publicly proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations.

Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Jul 22, 2008

Jerusalem should be capital of Israel, pending final status

Q: You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement.

A: There was no backtracking. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. But my policy has been very consistent. It’s the same policy tha Bill Clinton has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, that we shouldn’t divide it by barbed wire, but that, ultimately that a final status issue that has to be resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Jul 22, 2008

Jerusalem as joint Palestinian-Israeli capital is ok

Q: You recently supported Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem, the Arab half being the capital of a Palestinian state, the Jewish half being the capital of the Jewish state?

A: The truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ‘67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent. I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties. The intention was never to move away from that core idea that a Jewish state depends on their ability to create peace with their neighbors, and that the Palestinian leadership has to acknowledge that the battles that they’ve been fighting, and the rhetoric they’ve been employing, has not delivered for their people.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008

Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel

Q: You said recently, “No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Do you stand by that remark?

A: Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said. And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region. Israel is the linchpin of much of our efforts in the Middle East.

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC , Apr 26, 2007

FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort

Obama defended his remark that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” a statement attacked by some pro-Israel activists. His version differed in tone if not in substance from the way it was originally reported, however. Obama claimed in the debate that he meant “the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize , to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region.” That’s somewhat different from the way Obama was quoted March 12. As reported, Obama attributed Palestinian suffering to “the stalled peace efforts with Israel” and not so narrowly to failures by Palestinian leadership only. However, the Des Moines Register also reported that Obama praised Israel as an important US ally and urged the Palestinian government to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. So far as we can tell, the Register had the only reporter present at the event and no full transcript exists.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 South Carolina Democratic debate , Apr 26, 2007

Supports Israel’s self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis

The Israeli newspaper “Haaretz” convened a panel of experts to assess and track 2008 presidential candidates and evaluate “whom they consider best for Israel.” In Sept. 2006, Obama came in dead last, 18th in a field of 18. However, Haaretz also notes that during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, Obama was careful to defend Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah’s attacks.

Pro: Obama will be uniquely positioned to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict.
A liberal Democrat who is not trusted by Israeli experts is exactly what the US and the world needs. Only by treating Palestinian rights with dignity can the Middle East problem be resolved.

Con: President Obama will be widely detested in the Muslim world.
If Obama comes to power, it will be on the basis of blending authentic Christian religiosity with an inspiring message of tolerance and diversity. Unfortunately, this message runs exactly opposite to the core values of fundamentalist Islam.

Source: Should Barack Obama Be President?, by Fred Zimmerman, p.64-5 , Oct 17, 2006

Barack Obama on Resolutions

At college, protested for divestment from South Africa

Obama became involved in a popular campus movement of the day--urging divestment of university money from South Africa because of its policy of apartheid. It was through this activism that Obama first learned the power of words--and his own power with the spoken word. “I noticed that people had begun to listen to my opinions,” he wrote. “It was a discovery that made me hungry for words. Not words to hide behind but words that could carry a message, support an idea.“ His first public-speaking moment occurred when he opened a staged rally in which he was to begin talking to an afternoon crowd only to be yanked from the stage in a physical metaphor for the voiceless black South Africans.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p. 57 , Aug 14, 2007

Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power.

Congressional Summary:US-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act:

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. HOWARD BERMAN (D, CA-28): Integrating India into a global nonproliferation regime is a positive step. Before anyone gets too sanctimonious about India's nuclear weapons program, we should acknowledge that the five recognized nuclear weapons states have not done nearly enough to fulfill their commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, including making serious reductions in their own arsenals, nor in the case of the US in ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. BARBARA LEE (D, CA-9): In withholding my approval, I seek not to penalize the people of India but, rather, to affirm the principle of nuclear nonproliferation. Jettisoning adherence to the international nuclear nonproliferation framework that has served the world so well for more than 30 years, as approval of the agreement before us would do, is just simply unwise. It is also reckless.

Approval of this agreement undermines our efforts to dissuade countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. By approving this agreement, all we are doing is creating incentives for other countries to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Reference: US-India Nuclear Agreement; Bill HR.7081 ; vote number 2008-S211 on Oct 1, 2008

Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo.

Obama sponsored increasing aid to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo


SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: There is a country embroiled in conflict that has not yet received the high-level attention or resources it needs. It's the Democratic Republic of Congo, and right now it is in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe.

31,000 people are dying in the Congo each month and 3.8 million people have died in the previous 6 years. The country, which is the size of Western Europe, lies at the geographic heart of Africa and borders every major region across the continent. If left untended, Congo's tragedy will continue to infect Africa.

I believe that the United States can make a profound difference in this crisis. According to international aid agencies, there are innumerable cost-effective interventions that could be quickly undertaken--such as the provision of basic medical care, immunization and clean water--that could save thousands of lives. On the political front, sustained U.S. leadership could fill a perilous vacuum.


LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Became Public Law No. 109-456

Source: Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act (S.2125) 05-S2125 on Dec 16, 2005

Implement Darfur Peace Agreement with UN peacekeeping force.

Obama co-sponsored implementing Darfur Peace Agreement with UN peacekeeping force

Source: S.RES.455 08-SR455 on Feb 14, 2008

Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations.

Obama co-sponsored urging Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations

Source: Radio Caracas Resolution (S.RES.211) 2007-SR211 on May 21, 2007

Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO.

Obama co-sponsored including Ukraine & Georgia in NATO

Congressional Summary: A resolution expressing strong support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine:

  1. reaffirming support for enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include democratic governments that are able to meet the membership responsibilities;
  2. that NATO's expansion contributes to its relevance;
  3. that Georgia and Ukraine are strong allies that have made important progress in the areas of defense and democratic and human rights reform;
  4. that a stronger relationship among Georgia, Ukraine, and NATO will benefit those countries and NATO member states; and
  5. that the United States should take the lead in supporting the awarding of a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine.

Legislative Outome: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Source: S.RES.439 & H.RES.997 2008-SR439 on Jan 31, 2008

Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet.

Obama co-sponsored condemning the violence by Chinese government in Tibet

A resolution condemning the violence in Tibet and calling for restraint by the Government of the People's Republic of China and the people of Tibet. Calls for:

  1. a dialogue between the government of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on religious and cultural autonomy for Tibet within China; and
  2. release of peaceful protesters.
    Calls on the PRC to:
  1. respect the right of the people of Tibet to speak of the Dalai Lama and possess his photograph;
  2. respect basic human rights;
  3. allow international journalists free access to China; and
  4. provide a full accounting of the March 2008 protests in Tibet.
Urges that the agreement permitting the PRC to open further diplomatic missions in the United States should be contingent upon establishment of a U.S. government office in Lhasa, Tibet.
Source: S.RES.504 2008-SR504 on Apr 7, 2008

Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy.

Obama co-sponsored sanctioning Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the political situation in Zimbabwe. Expresses the sense of the Senate:

  1. supporting the people of Zimbabwe;
  2. that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission should immediately release the legitimate results of the presidential election and ratify the previously announced results of the parliamentary elections;
  3. that President Robert Mugabe should accept the will of the people of Zimbabwe in order to effect a timely and peaceful transition to democratic rule;
  4. that the U.S. government and the international community should impose targeted sanctions against individuals in the government of Zimbabwe and state security services and militias who are responsible for human rights abuses and election interference;
  5. that the U.S. government and the international community should work together to prepare an economic and political recovery package for Zimbabwe;
  6. that regional organizations should play an active role in resolving the crisis; and
  7. that the U.N. Security Council should support efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution of the crisis and impose an international arms embargo on Zimbabwe until a legitimate democratic government has taken power.
Source: S.RES.533&H.RES.1230 2008-SR533 on Apr 24, 2008

Afghan law tolerating marital rape is abhorrent.

Obama Shi'ite Personal Status Law

Source: SCR.19&HCR.108 2009-SCR19 on Apr 23, 2009

Pressure friendly Arab states to end Israeli boycott.

Obama signed Schumer-Graham letter to Secy. Rice from 79 Congress members

    Dear Secretary Rice,
    In the past, the lack of sufficient support from [non-participating] Arab states have made it difficult to reach agreements [on the Arab-Israeli conflict]. You should press friendly Arab countries that have not yet done so, to:
  1. Participate in the upcoming international meeting and be a full partner of the US in advancing regional peace
  2. Take visible, meaningful steps in the financial, diplomatic and political arena to help Palestinian President Abbas govern effectively and meet obligations to fight terror
  3. Stop support for terrorist groups and cease all anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement
  4. Recognize Israel's right to exist and not use such recognition as a bargaining chip for future Israeli concessions
  5. End the Arab League economic boycott of Israel in all of its forms
  6. Pressure Hamas to recognize Israel, reject terror, and accept prior agreements, and isolate Hamas until it takes such steps.
Source: Schumer-Graham letter to Secy. Rice from 79 Congress members 2010-LT-AR on Oct 2, 2007

Other candidates on Foreign Policy: Barack Obama on other issues:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
GOP Candidates:
Gov.Mitt Romney(MA)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Rocky Anderson(J)
Roseanne Barr(PF)
Rep.Virgil Goode(C)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L)
Jill Stein(G)
Andre Barnett(Ref.)

GOP Withdrawals:
Rep.Michele Bachmann(MN)
Herman Cain(GA)
Rep.Newt Gingrich(GA)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Rep.Ron Paul(TX)
Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Page last updated: Jan 22, 2013