Foreign Testing Obama

Waiting is the most boring job. Likewise, when waiting for the inauguration of U.S. President Barack Obama was elected January 20 next, the world community also can not wait anymore. They want to see the activities of the agent of change is like a promise in his campaign.

Now the world is longing for the arrival of a policy of fair and honest settlement of unequal war vs. Israel Hamas in the Gaza Strip, because they've had enough of President Bush's statement that always defend Israel although obviously the country's Zionist massacre of more than 500 people in Gaza, a quarter are women and children.

Clearly this is a mighty tough task for a new leader witnessed heavily armed soldiers slaughtering people unarmed, while the soldiers were allies. But with the greatness of his soul, with his mind's eye, that genocide should be stopped.

"Of course, Israel also did not want to burden the president-elect with this problem, when he was just sitting in the White House. It's clear these issues would complicate any diplomatic efforts," said Steven Cook, Middle East analysts at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But if Obama is the right person as portrayed as a leader who has a big soul and a conscience to resolve the unequal struggle? It's difficult to answer, because Obama's transition team, which also means a transition team candidate Hillary Clinton's Foreign Minister remained in a relationship with the Israeli envoy.

From there reflected that the U.S. is in the hands of Obama would not be much different with the U.S. under Bush. But the global community still wanted to prove that Obama's promise to improve U.S. relations with Islamic countries. But the promise was proven or not, became known only after January 20.

Middle East conflict will inevitably be a test for Obama. From that will come out clear if his campaign promises just lips service merely for the sake of making noise. This test, given Mr Bush also inherited by the two wars that have not ended, ie Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, Obama's national advisor, General James L Jones, has repeatedly said Iraq war was 'strangling' the U.S. in various sectors. But Obama never said that did not have to waste money in Iraq and the country can get back their sovereignty.

The deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq before 2013, Obama will also be observed without any difficulty. Here, Vice President Joe Biden will be more important role than Hillary Clinton. Because she experienced head of the Chairman Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate in 2002. In the end, in the hands of the U.S. Obama will finish what they start in Iraq. It hopes.

But the thing is not over, because some ex-Iraq U.S. troops will be diverted to Afghanistan. The Taliban are eliminated, but that does not mean they lose. Hillary never said they are the forgotten front lines of fate in the hands of NATO.

Not to mention the situation in the country chaotic Afghanistan with rampant corruption and opium production is also increased. Unpredictable how Obama will handle this area, or maybe this task will be handed over to Hillary.

Not finished in Afghanistan, not less complicated problem unsolved is the country's nuclear program Iran accused the United States to manufacture nuclear weapons. We know that due to this issue, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President Bush until the war of words in the media of its mouth again about Israel. U.S. worried that nuclear weapons will be used to attack the allies. In fact, Hillary has said if Iran attacked Israel, the United States not only defend, but also destroy Iran.

Ironically, Obama had promised the U.S. would help and overcome difficulties together Iran, which will be assisted by Hillary, the same woman who had threatened to annihilate Iran. Has been a problem to be faced Obama?

Oops! Apparently not, because of tensions with Russia over U.S. anti-missile shield to be placed in Poland also needs attention Obama. Russia would feel threatened by anti-missile system was. In response to U.S. actions, they put a missile launcher in Kaliningrad Iskandar. But Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has expressed readiness to leave the project if the United States, through Obama, to take the same attitude. Even Medvedev expressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the global security system with the United States, European Union, and the Russian Federation, because he felt the system was a threat to the Red Bear Country.

Well, now depends Obama, if he would complete the first test for the 'subjects' of international politics, a field of rivals as ditudingkan not territory.

If he managed to overcome this obstacle, it will be easier to improve relations with Uncle Sam's enemy in Latin America, like Cuba and Venezuela.

Read More

Thailand Put Maximum Security For ASEAN Summit

Hua Hin,Thai government exert maximum efforts to secure the head of state who attended the Southeast Asia Summit (Summit) to the 15th ASEAN in Hua Hin, Thailand, on 23-25 October 2009.

Defense and Military Attache Indonesia in Thailand, Colonel Bambang Hartawan in Hua Hin, Thailand, Friday, assess the readiness of Thailand utmost to ensure the smooth running of the 15th Summit of ASEAN.

"They do not want to repeat such events in Pattaya," said Bambang.

The 15th Summit of ASEAN should be held on 11-12 April 2009 in Pattaya, but finally postponed to 23-25 October 2009 in Hua Hin because it was the demonstrators occupied the place and managed to disperse the summit.

At that time, several leaders of ASEAN countries such as Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo should be evacuated from the venue by helicopter.

The Company President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who had landed in Thailand when it was finally canceled the visit and immediately returned to Indonesia.

Bambang explained to avoid security problems at the 15th Summit of ASEAN, the Thai side to concentrate all direct coordination under military control.

Thai government formed a special task force under the control of Secretary of Defense to reduce more than 18 thousand security personnel which is a combination of police forces, army, air force and navy.

To secure the leadership of the ASEAN countries, the Thai side also has devoted a maximum security around the location of the hotel where heads of state stay / governments of member countries of ASEAN.

Around the Hotel Grand Pacific where President Yudhoyono will stay, has deployed around 100 policemen for security in the building and about 300 army personnel are on guard outside the hotel.

Every vehicle that crossed the hotel where the delegation stayed through Indonesia that have a checkpoint, while the hotel every visitor must go through rigorous examination.

Hua Hin Area, a distance of three-hour overland journey from Bangkok deliberately chosen by the Thai government for the location of the summit organizing the 15th ASEAN security reasons.

In the coastal town of Phetchaburi province south of Bangkok is far from the hustle and is a resting area for the King and Queen of Thailand to spend their old age.

"People are very respected Thai royal family, so that the protesters were reluctant to rally in Hua Hin. Politically, this area includes the area safe," said Bambang.

Thai political conditions that tend to dynamic and unpredictable, he added, making the Thai government may be preparing a security sedetil organizing the 15th Summit of ASEAN to the events in Pattaya no longer happen.

Summit of the 15 ASEAN began on Friday morning October 23, 2009 with the opening ceremony which was attended by leaders of ASEAN countries.

According to information, the new President Yudhoyono arrived in Thailand on Saturday (24/10) to attend the 15th Summit of ASEAN.

President Yudhoyono postponed due to the departure to Thailand on Friday (23/10) held the first plenary cabinet session to give direction to all the new ministers will serve in the United Indonesia Cabinet II.

Summit of the 15 ASEAN in Hua Hin will be accompanied also by a meeting of heads of state / government of ASEAN countries with their counterparts in East Asia, namely China, Japan, South Korea, and India, and the two countries in the Pacific region, namely Australia and New Zealand new.

Read More

SBY and Boediono official Inaugurated As President and Vice President

Jakarta, Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and officially inaugurated Boediono in the House of Representatives. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono arrived promptly at 9:45 as the Vice President-elect, Boediono, arrived about 15 minutes earlier.

Inauguration of president and vice president was also attended by five prime ministers from neighboring countries. No less than Kevin Rudd, Australian prime minister, Sultan Hasanah Bolkiah, Sultan of Brunei Darussalam, the prime minister of Malaysia, East Timor, and Singapore also attended the inauguration. In addition, dozens of ambassadors and special envoys also attended the event.

In addition to the ambassadors, governors, and head of the region, also attended by former president BJ Habibie. However, Megawati nevertheless attended the ceremony and reportedly ailing. The ministers and ministerial candidates also attended the inauguration.

In a speech to a state, Indonesia SBY rate while successfully overcoming the crisis that many countries still fall in the global crisis. The President is elected by the people for the second time it was revealed the program 100 days a year, and five years to come. In essence, increased prosperity, democracy, and justice has been the focus of government.

In addition, SBY is also ordered to carry out the three keys to success, namely: do not ever give up, while maintaining unity and togetherness, and maintaining national identity. In the international world, SBY stressed that Indonesia remains active independent run, currently there is no country that regarded Indonesia as an enemy, and vice versa, Indonesia does not consider the same country as the enemy.

After the inauguration, the president directly to the state court to Be hospitable to the guest country will give congratulations.

Inauguration this time, as usual, applying the extra tight security. No less, about 400 thousand police personnel deployed in this inauguration. Even so, after the inauguration, in front of the Parliament building visible demonstration by workers who demanded the welfare of workers.

Read More

US Needs a Coherent Foreign Policy Strategy

If one examines the U.S. National Security Strategy, one finds that the document contains almost no meaningful geopolitical discussion, even as national security cannot achieved in isolation. What happens in one part of the world most definitely can impact decisions and/or events in another part of the world. Nations have economic, political, and military relationships that transcend borders. Information flows around the world in near real-time, and such information can create perceptions that influence the calculations of the leaders of state and non-state entities. Understanding the geopolitical consequences of policy options and leveraging geopolitical linkages is crucial to effective foreign policy decisionmaking. Assessing opportunity costs associated with decisions (e.g., will a given decision worsen prospects for other U.S. interests and would those costs outweigh the benefits of such a decision?) can allow policymakers to make better-informed decisions.

In the Middle East, while the Bush Administration hails the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, that decision had broad implications that will play out for years to come. The removal of Saddam Hussein and chaotic environment that followed in Iraq increased Iran's prospects of achieving regional hegemony. Prior to Hussein's removal, Iraq was perceived by Iran as a powerful foe. Like the U.S. and international community, Iran's leadership believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As Iraq had used such weapons in the past, including during its war with Iran, Iraq served as a deterrent to Iran and Iran's ambitions were far more modest. Iran's primary concern was maintaining sufficient strength so as to be secure from potential Iraqi aggression.

Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, that all changed. Iran is in a position to pursue regional dominance, and it is aggressively doing so. Moreover, in August 2005, Iran elected radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President.

Questions for historians to debate include:

• If Iranians believed a radical such as Ahmadinejad might provoke Iraqi aggression, would they have elected him?

• If Iran's primary foreign policy objective was to deter Iraq, could they afford to have elected Ahmadinejad?

• If Ahamdinejad were not elected, would the gradual thawing of relations toward the West have continued?

• If Ahmadinejad were not elected and relations with the West were thawing, would this environment increased the prospects of Iran's student-led democratic movement to gain influence over Iran's destiny?

• If Ahmadinejad were not elected, would Iran be as aggressive in its nuclear pursuits, especially if it perceived that Iraq would seek to prevent Iran's development of such weapons that would alter the existing balance of power?

• If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq and the memory of the smashing U.S. victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf War was how the region's leaders perceived the U.S., would Iran be so willing to take measures that undermine U.S. regional interests and allies and would it be so willing to defy U.S. demands concerning its nuclear program?

• If the U.S. had retained its traditional approach to military pre-emption (credible and imminent threat to U.S. critical interests), would it have found greater support from the world's nations, ranging from the trans-Atlantic alliance to the world's major powers?

Those are the kind of issues that should be assessed ahead of time in developing a foreign policy strategy. They are not the kind of issues that should be left for historians to debate after a decision has been made at high geopolitical cost.

But that's not all. The U.S. failed to understand the reality of foreign policy linkages. For example, outside of the Middle East, Russia is one of the nations that can exert significant influence over Iran. Russia has supplied Iran with some weapons in recent years, its technicians are involved with Iran's nuclear industry, and Russia still has the capacity to drive down oil prices by increasing its oil production.

Instead, since the 1990s, the U.S. has neglected its bilateral relationship with Russia. Things have especially begun to deteriorate under President Bush's leadership.

• U.S./NATO intervention in the Balkans during the 1990s was opposed by Russia.

• The U.S. failed to give Russia unconditional support in its fight against radical Islamist terrorists, some of whom are associated with Al Qaeda, in its semi-autonomous Chechen region. In fact, the U.S., at times publicly called for Russian restraint and Russian negotiations. Russia's leaders see this as a double standard that the U.S. would, itself reject, if it were asked to do so with Al Qaeda. Any U.S. criticism should have been conveyed privately not publicly.

• Russia's role with respect to NATO is a highly limited one. As a result, Russia sees NATO's continuing expansion into its "Near Abroad" as potentially threatening, because Russia lacks a sufficient voice over decisionmaking. Moreover, as Russia's calculations concerning the Iranian missile threat differ markedly from Washington's—RRussia sees no meaningful threat for another 15-20 years—its leadership assumes that the limited anti-missile systems planned for Poland and the Czech Republic constitute a pilot project of what will eventually be a much larger system that would be arrayed against it. If one keeps in mind Russian historical experience, one can see how Russia comes to such conclusions.

• The U.S. was the last nation to accept Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization, even as WTO membership was one of President Putin's most important objectives.

• Russia opposed the war in Iraq.

• At the time Paul Bremer headed the Coalition Provisional Authority in Russia, Mr. Bremer canceled major oil contracts between Russia and Iraq, harming Russia's economic interests.

• Today, the U.S. is in the vanguard calling for Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Russia opposes such an outcome.

All said, the basis was laid for increasing Russian "counterbalancing" against the U.S. To date, such "counterbalancing" has been "soft." However, with Russia's planned suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the potential exists for a "harder" military counterbalancing down the road. In this context, Russian cooperation with respect to Iran will likely be modest, except if Iran begins taking measures that would threaten Russian interests.

Iran welcomes this environment and is exploiting its opportunities. Seeing the U.S. as relatively "isolated" on the world stage, it is launching a dizzying array of diplomatic initiatives to preclude an effective economic sanctions regime. It is fostering cooperation with Venezuela, expanding ties to Cuba, reinforcing its relationship with Syria, and entering into increasing contractual commitments with Turkey, Pakistan, and China. Farther down the road, such events could lead to "energy mercantilism" in which competing countries seek to lock up scarce resources. Such an outcome would contain the seeds of future instability.

Overall, the U.S. urgently needs, not a revised national security strategy, but a coherent foreign policy strategy. Such a strategy would need to identify the nation's critical interests, describe the balance of power necessary to improve security and stability and what needs to be done to achieve that balance, outline what the U.S. is seeking to accomplish overall, set forth measures for assessing progress, identify the geopolitical linkages/relationships that could offer synergies for accomplishing foreign policy objectives, and significantly increase the nation's foreign aid budget (possibly double it so as to restore its "soft power" capabilities*)and gear such assistance toward strategic ends, etc. In its dealings with the world, the U.S. will need to embrace long-term and robust engagement. It will need to emphasize leadership through persuasion and credibility, partnership for achieving shared interests, strategic approaches rather than ad hoc "fire-fighting," and base its military policy on the Powell Doctrine and traditional approach to pre-emption.

Read More

Obama Win Nobel Peace Prize

President of the United States (U.S.) Barack Obama received the grace of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. This award was given because Obama is considered struggling promote diplomacy and international cooperation.

Nobel Commission says Obama as U.S. president managed to create a new climate in the world of international politics. "Obama set of multilateral diplomacy as a major step by asserting that the U.S. plays an important role in diplomacy," the Commission stated as quoted by the daily pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Obama praised the commission for dialogue and negotiations confirmed as a means to resolve international conflicts. Obama's view on nuclear-free world also led disarmament negotiations and controlling nuclear weapons.

"Thanks to Obama because the U.S. is now successfully play a more constructive role in facing the challenges," said Commission.

Read More

How Can the Government Increase It's Budget?

The only answer has, is, and always will be to 'reduce' taxes on the 'rich.' I feel that there is large portion of those who are ignorant of Economics 101 in Washington D.C. and most State governments. However, I think that I understand how they can be trapped into thinking the first sentence is not true. So, I think it is about time that Obama nation actually fulfill his campaign promise of doing something new, and original, instead of employing the same old failed communist political theories he was brainwashed into believing.

The problem with politics as usual is that it assumes that the economy is static. The Economy is dynamic in relation to many things but taxation governs it. It 'shrinks' when the government increases taxes; Especially, when they increase taxes on the rich. Therefore, the way to 'grow' the Economy is to do the opposite, and 'reduce' taxation. This increases the 'pie' that taxes draw from. Obama nation may have 'won', by lying to the American citizen; But, what I have said is 'scientifically' and 'mathematically' verifiable.

Government 'interference' with the economy retards economic grow, the vast majority of the time. The only time that Government 'interference' actually helps the economy is when it facilitates, promotes, and encourages the 'individual' to choose a different option. This is done when the government actually 'helps' small businesses to grow and 'compete' with the big interstate and international, corporations and mega-conglomerations. It is important to note that the only result of 'hurting' the interstate and international, corporations and mega-conglomerations {i.e. taxation and regulation}; Is, to reduce the economy, retard economic growth, and to hurt the individual citizen.

This is why 'Libertarian' policies have been 'proven' to increase job, and economic, growth. This is why communism, fascism, socialism, federalism, and Obama nationalism routinely fails to promote job, and economic, growth. All of this is why "stimulus plan"s that increase government 'regulation', and most spending, only hurt the economy. I think that it is about time for us {Citizens} to 'demand' our state and federal government representatives actually employ new 'Libertarian' economic, and government, policies.

Read More

Haiti's Political Parties-Why So Many

Over two hundred years have passed since its Independence, and Haiti remains trailing behind the developing world. Now that we have entered a new and strange phase in Haiti, perhaps the lowest ever, from sporadic kidnappings, murders, to a society of lawlessness, should we sit and wait for solutions from a dubious International Community? Or should we be seeking our own solutions to our existing problems? The country that used to be the model for freedom lovers now finds itself in a different kind of a struggle, a struggle where poverty, public safety, education and unemployment become the core enemy of its inhabitants. What should we do to eradicate Haiti’s rampant problems? Where should we begin? Or should we even bother? Others, including myself, would argue that, amongst other things, Haiti’s political party system is a menace to its political stability. Thus, we cannot turn our backs on Haiti. We must help control and reduce the problems of Haiti.

The land of Toussaint Louverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Mackandal, after all, my land has amassed so much unsolved political mysteries that I frequently wonder where to start in the process of solving its dilemmas. Though I find it difficult to pinpoint the real reasons behind Haiti’s troubles, to not attempt to seek possible solutions is adding to its misery. I would say that one of the reasons why Haiti is trailing behind the developing world is the weakness of its political party system. In fact, it seems that Haiti’s political party system has greatly contributed to its current stalemate.

Following the fall of President Jean-Claude Duvalier, political parties have mushroomed throughout the country. Haitian “leaders” from all over the world, especially from the U.S, France and Canada invaded the streets of Port-au-Prince hoping to succeed Duvalier. It was a “marathon” to the presidency. Such an attitude was then understandable for there was a vacuum in the Haitian political system. However, I’m afraid that it continues till today. To mock the people, the word on the streets of Haiti was then “no more presidents for life”. While the “leaders” are calling for changes and “saying” no to president for life, they are elected for life within their own political parties. Isn’t this ironic? We can take RDNP/Lesly F. Manigat, MDN/Hubert Deronceray, and KONAKOM/Victor Benoit as examples of leaders who are elected for life within their political parties. It is a presidential ego that is driving them so blindly that nobody seems to notice the outcry of the Haitians to the political party system. The truth is such that these “leaders” would take a five years sabbatical from the public after loosing a presidential election, however, if there’s a coup d’état, they would resurface hoping to be offered the presidency.

I truly am certain that these “leaders’” sole purpose is winning a presidential election. There is no evidence to support the contrary. These aforementioned “leaders” could have been remarkable lawmakers or great mayors but, in Haiti, there is a myth about the presidency. One has to become president to prove his patriotism or to prove what he can do for the Republic. Having said this, I would argue that political party reform is necessary and must take place in Haiti for we cannot let such a weak and poorly organized system decide on the future of the country. I mention the future of the country because; I believe that, the well-being of Haiti is fundamentally rest on the direction taken by its political party system. It is also true for long term political stability to take place in Haiti. In fact, long term political stability in Haiti is contingent upon a complete political party reform. The current system is problematic and an invitation to voting flaws and chaos as it has been proven to be so. The question becomes why so many Parties?

There are more than sixty-seven political parties in a country of approximately eight and a half million souls. This is a staggering number that tends to grow daily. Though successfully organized, the last presidential election in Haiti proved the weakness of the political parties to compete. Among 34 candidates running for the office of the presidency in February 2006, 33 of them ranked on the bottom 13% of the vote tallied. What this is suggesting is that a win for President Preval could very well be a loss for Haiti, that is to say, in the absence of a strong political process, the winner is deemed to be irrelevant. Because of so many candidates, the political process becomes a joke and, quite frankly, most Haitians are not willing to laugh at Haiti’s sadness; and so they would stay home and not participate in the electoral process. As such, the legitimacy of the vote will always be questioned. Whereas, has there been a three to four political party system, the electorates would have had a greater influence in choosing the highest authority figure of the land.

As Haiti tries to get back on track, with the new elected government of Preval/Alexis, there isn’t a better time to challenge the political party system of Haiti. This government should make political party reform one of its priorities in order for political stability to take place in Haiti. Sadly, in Haiti, if one disagrees with all of the existing political parties, he will gather a few friends, sometimes reactionaries, and form his political party. This practice is unacceptable and it must be stopped. Most of Haiti’s political parties are frankly what is known to be organization of peers and associates rather than political parties. We must set a clear difference between a political party and an organization of gangsters. A political party entails broad wisdom instead of the savoir-faire of a few narrow minded individuals whose sole purposes are trying to earn a living and winning a presidential election. When engaging in politics is no longer viewed as a way of earning a living, the number of Haiti’s political parties will be dramatically declined. What I’m suggesting here is that, when life becomes unbearable in Haiti, one forms a political party as a way of dealing with the hardship of life. This practice cannot be continued for it will ruin the country to the point of no return and we must therefore call for a complete political party reform in Haiti.

An alternative could be a Three Grand National Political Party System. As I attempt to address the problem of Haiti’s political party system, I would suggest the following 3 parties as an alternative to the current brouhaha:

1- LAVALAS

2- CONVERGENCE DEMOCRATIC

3- INDEPENDENT (including the group of 184)

As the principle political actors of Haiti, both LAVALAS and the CONVERGENCE DEMOCRATIC have proven to be well known, competitive and dominant. What is left to do is naming an Independent party. I would further argue that the group of 184 is perfectly fit to become the Independent party of Haiti. With these changes in place, Haitian “leaders” would be forced to depersonalize the political parties and work together by putting forth concrete ideas to better their respective parties. It would be excited to see Haitian “leaders” competing with each others in primaries within their own parties, wouldn’t it? At one point, when the Convergence Democratic emerged, I have sensed a change in the direction of the political party system in Haiti; but the vision of this group was far from what I propose above for the idea behind it was not for the love of Haiti but the hatred of Aristide. Anyone who followed Haitian’s politics of the past decade would concur that these 3 political entities combined would easily claim about 85% of the Haitian electorates, thus any other parties would be seen as a lesser figure in Haitian politics.

Is such a proposition realistic in Haiti? Some of us would be apt to argue that Haitians are not capable of working together for they are not trustworthy when it comes to defending the interest of Haiti. Nevertheless, I believe that we can go beyond our misgivings of each others and work together in the interest of Haiti. Should it be exactly my proposition? Absolutely not, but we must agree that Haiti’s political party system is in a dire need for reform.

Political party reform is a necessary endeavor that sooner or later must take place in Haiti seeing that the consequences of it not taking place are greater than we could imagine. The road to a political party reform in Haiti is not at all trouble-free; however, we cannot afford standing, hoping for a miracle from outsiders, while the country is draining away. Haiti is loudly crying for help and it will take courage, discipline, leadership, responsibility and sacrifices to meet its needs. As citizens of this lost paradise, it is our civic duty to put aside our political differences, come forward and launch a crusade behind political party reform in Haiti. We must fearlessly and vehemently come together and demand that our political party system be reformed, and to do the contrary, is simply saying “hell” to the spirits of our ancestors.

Read More