Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The 7 countries that are pissed at Obama (economics edition)
By Phil Levy
This week brought some rave reviews for the Obama administration's foreign policy performance at the six month mark. My colleague Dan Drezner remarked upon a puff piece sympathetic analysis this week in The New Republic that described the White House's diplomatic maneuvering as a work of genius. The Washington Post opened a lead editorial by stating that "...only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel."
The Post backed up this bold claim with survey data about America's popularity in nations around the world. The data show that President Obama is distinctly more popular than President Bush. But is this the right measure of the state of bilateral relations?
It's hardly the only thing one would find in a scenesetter cable on the eve of a high-level visit. Such an analysis would properly include factors like disputes, ongoing or resolved, and the willingness of the other government to cooperate with the United States on issues we deem important.
Public opinion is certainly relevant, but it can be misleading about the state of government relations. For example, a poll of Iranians fielded just before their recent election found a large majority favoring normal ties with the United States. That's hardly conclusive evidence that all is well between the United States and Iran. Even The New Republic piece acknowledged U.S.-Iranian tensions as the one discomfiting blemish in an otherwise carefree diplomatic landscape.
What if we survey that landscape with a more critical eye and move beyond public goodwill toward our leader? In the interest of stoking some debate, let me offer my list of countries with which relations have deteriorated in the last six months. I'll pocket the Post's Israel point and omit Iran, since relations with them are bad, but not necessarily worse. The list is necessarily subjective, but I'll give my reasons for each. You can apply your own weights.
1. Canada. Relations were not particularly bad between the Bush and Harper administrations. It's hard to think of an irritant as significant as the Buy American legislation that Obama signed into law with the stimulus bill. Though Canada was supposed to be exempted from that provision by an amendment recognizing U.S. obligations at the WTO and NAFTA, the Canadians are very upset about the way the measure has been implemented.
2. China. While the major issues between the United States and China are qualitatively unchanged, China is expressing substantially more concern about U.S. economic behavior than they did under the Bush administration. China is worried about the sustainability of U.S. deficit spending and what it will do to their trillions in dollar reserves. Of course, neither Bush nor Obama ever tabled a plan for a balanced budget, but the worst Bush deficit was 3.55 percent of GDP in 2004. According to the CBO, the best Obama-planned deficit in the next ten years will be 3.9 percent of GDP in 2013; the worst will be 13 percent in 2009.
3. Colombia. The Obama administration has done nothing to pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Colombians have been very explicit about how important the agreement is to them economically. All explanations for delay are based upon harsh criticism of the Uribe administration's performance.
4. Honduras. Whatever the merits of the argument over President Zelaya's ouster, in January we were getting along with them quite nicely.
5. Panama. Not only has the Obama administration teased the Panamanians with intimations of FTA passage that were later retracted, it has annoyed them with a never-ending series of requests to remove obstacles to the already-signed accord.
6. South Korea. While the Obama team has at least hinted that the Panama FTA may be passed soon, there have been no such suggestions about the FTA with Korea. The agreement was wildly controversial in Korea and the government ran serious risks by promoting it. They can hardly appreciate the way it has been placed in purgatory, particularly given the irony of the principal U.S. objection: Korean interference in its auto market. Nor has there been any notable security success with the North to offset the chill in economic relations.
7. The United Kingdom. This is a close call. On the one hand, the two countries have been enthusiastic partners in economic stimulus. On the other, a series of Obama nubs (the Churchill Bust bust, wrong-region DVDs, an iPod for Her Majesty) led some in the British press to ask how special the special relationship still was. The scales tip in favor of inclusion because the British have some of the same trade concerns as the Canadians.
The list clearly reflects my emphasis on the diplomatic importance of international economic relations. But a number of Washington ambassadors and foreign officials seem to share this view. Both at home and abroad, personal admiration for Obama has to be balanced against concerns about what his policies will do the pocketbook.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition.
1. Canada. Relations were not
Among other things. They're also quite upset that the US has slammed down much stronger border restrictions and a passport requirement (ostensibly to counter a perceived terrorism-across-the-border scenario, but probably just because they're getting crap from Mexico over their border laws and are feeling pressured to hit "both sides equally").
Some of that was inevitable - Obama was getting to carry over Bush's late 2008 massive deficit bills (like the $700 billion Paulson bill, plus TARP), plus a downturn in the economy always lowers tax revenues.
It'd almost be interesting to actually see the Chinese balk at buying more bonds, just to see the effects (although it's doubtful that they'd do so abruptly, since that would cause the value of US bonds to crash, destroying the value of the Chinese pile of them).
I definitely agree with you there. It's all the more important due to the crap Colombia is taking from Chavez and his allies down south.
Although it's largely our fault for not pushing through the FTA with Korea, it's not really our fault that the Norks decided to be intransigent.
Make that Nine Countries
You could quite easily add both India and Pakistan to that list:
Pakistan had serious concerns about Obama increasing the severity and regularity of attacks on Pakistani territory, in apparent violation of Pakistan's territorial soveregnty. (See: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/will+obama+bomb+us+or+not-sal)
While some of those fears have dissipated, the Pakistani military and intelligence communities remain concerned about the so-called "Af-Pak strategy" (See: http://www.military.com/news/article/pakistan-slams-us-surge-in-afghanistan.html)
Meanwhile, India is worried about Obama's emphasis on nuclear disarmament, climate change, Kashmir, trade and outsourcing, although many Indians believe he simply doesn't care for the country very much. (See: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?260049).
At some point, it would be
At some point, it would be great if a critic of the Obama administration's deficits would deign to mention that the deficit was already over a trillion dollars when he took office. I'm sure it makes for a great statistic, but comparing the current deficit to all the years except the last year of Bush's term, just because the fiscal year ended under Obama, is dishonest. I am as worried about deficits as the next guy, but this constant din of blaming Obama alone for the huge deficits caused by the economic crisis, TARP, ARRA, and the other myriad bailouts is ignoring the role of the Bush administration in getting the ball rolling.
Yes, we have a problem with deficits. Yes, it needs to be addressed. Yes, so far the Obama administration has shown worryingly little enthusiasm for spending cuts. On the other hand, most serious economists agree that recessions are a particularly bad time to reign in deficits. As the economy (slowly) recovers, it will be time to look at making serious spending cuts AND raising revenues.
For the moment, can we just be a bit more honest when discussing the deficit?
And I whole-heartedly agree that the "Buy American" provisions were a terrible idea. The question becomes, was it worth a veto on a piece of legislation that was supposed to be a big step towards bringing us out of a deep recession? I don't know the answer to that. The President's own party in Congress is often his worst enemy.
The FTAs have, regrettably, been lost in the shuffle. Whether they should be higher on the President's priority list is not a question I know how to answer. For the moment, however, congress and the administration are pretty tied up with health care, climate change, immigration, and a defense budget. Judging by what President Obama wrote before he started running for President, he is a free trader, though not one without reservations. Hopefully, he will take a leadership role in getting these passed.
Honduras
May I add, that the Obama administration has managed to alienate old time friends and embolden his enemies!
Iran: Trample an election, kill pacifists, we dont meddle.
Israel: Do as I say, not as I do.
Canada: Show me how you dispense medicine, but Buy American.
HONDURAS: Say what ? You have a pseudo dictator who tramples your constitution, thinks he is above the law, and wants to stay in power for life ? Naaaa ... put him back in his office or we'll cancel some humanitarian aid and pound on your head!
Yes, these are the cold facts about how US Foreign policy has been perceived from abroad over the last six months.
Problem is, Canadians will STOP buying America, Iran will NOT stop enriching Uranium, Hesbola now thinks it has US approval for suicide bombings and HONDURANS thinks the Obama administration could care less about the Honduras rule of law, so long as his back doors neighbours keep it quiet down there. (Expect daily truck loads of illegal immigration from Honduras if Zelaya is reinstated).
And don't get me started on Russia!
Canada's been pissed off since 2001
Canada's been pissed with the USA since 2001 when instead of thanking canada for all our help, senior members of congress claimed the 9/11 terrorists entered the US from canada (they didn't) and started racheting up border protections. a problem that began under bush but CONTIUNES under Obama when the secrectary in charge of borders has apparently exporessed the belife the 9/11 terrorists came in through canada.
while most canadians can almost forgive a texas republican buying that crap, that the obama administration seems to is highly.. dischouyrageing to canadians
I don't know why anyone in
I don't know why anyone in Canada should be surprised at this. It was perfectly clear during the election campaign that Obama would have to play up to the protectionist segment of the Democrats to secure their votes.
Be it trade or border security there was ample evidence this was coming down the pipe if he was elected so no one here should be whinging about it now.
water, water, everywhere...
The border crossings between Canada and the US are notoriously bad. The city of Grand Forks is embarking on a sort of impromptu public relations campaign, because of recent incidents with Canadian tourists being ordered around at gunpoint :
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/07/31/mb-miller-border-agents-winnipeg.html
From personal experience I can attest that it is far easier to get into Cuba than it is to get into the States.
However, the big sticking point in American/Canadian relations will likely be the Boundary Waters Treaty. Bush flagrantly violated the hundred year old treay by pushing through the Devil's Lake diversion. It remains to be seen whether or not Obama/Clinton will try and reverse this or give provinces and states free reign to pollute each other's waters.
This is pretty weak
4. Honduras - Is Obama in any way responsible for the coup? Or is he just taking a pretty uncontroversial stance: if you have problems with your government, pursue it through the official channels rather than overthrowing the current gov with military power.
7. The United Kingdom - So we're taking a few perceived slights and the wailing of the tabloids over favorability ratings? http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264
This one applies to Canada, too. And South Korea. And China.
It's not that the TNR piece was accurate, but you're really overplaying your hand with that title. At best, these five countries(I'll give you Panama and Colombia) have somewhat different issues with Obama than they had with Bush, with inconclusive overall results.
This article is highly
This article is highly misleading -
On FP's homepage, the article title screamed "7 countries that are furious with Obama."
On the blog page, we have a milder "7 countries that are pissed with Obama."
Finally, the article turns out to be some relatively small disagreements (Honduras??!) that some countries have with the Obama administration.
Why is israel not on this
Why is israel not on this list?
I'd think relations with israel are in far worse shape than with britain.
After all, when you get right down to it the british pretty much just do whatever we say, but israel is a sovereign nation that does whatever the hell they want.
Countries pissed at the U.S.
First, J Thomas, in paragraph 5 of the article Mr. Levy specifically wrote "I'll pocket the Post's Israel point and omit Iran, since relations with them are bad, but not necessarily worse. The list is necessarily subjective. . . ." Therefore, we know before he even starts his list that he's excluding Israel (and Iran) from his list, which he acknowledges to be subjective. While I might agree with you that Israel easily *could* be on the list, when the writer specifically defers to another source for his or her present purposes, then I reckon we have to grant that writer license to do so.
+++++
Secondly, Mr. Levy, of course you're correct that the President's personal popularity doesn't mean all is sweetness, reason, and light in the world of foreign affairs and our international relations. We also see that on the domestic front, where President Obama as an individual has often been found to more popular than some policy he has pushed.
+++++
On the other hand, President Bush was largely seen -- fairly or not -- as holding the views of anyone who didn't march with him in lock-step as not worthy of a moment's regard, whereas President Obama is widely perceived as being far more open to others' views. I live in Bangkok, and my circle of friends and acquaintances is the usual eclectic expat community, composed of folks from a wide variety of countries, as well as Thais. Some of my friends who aren't from the U.S. got exasperated, at times, with President Bush -- even when they agreed with him and criticized their own national leaders for not supporting President Bush. Though I didn't take notes, if memory serves, this seemed to be especially true of my Canadian friends.
+++++
While I voted mostly Republican, I did vote for the Obama-Biden ticket, in part because I felt Obama would present a softer face to the world than Bush did. And let me add that while I had some disagreements with President Bush, some of them critically important to me, I'm not a Bush-basher and don't think every single thing he did was wrong. For instance, I feel he still gets too little credit for taking the medical aid program begun by President Clinton and vastly expanding it -- which is why Bush remains rather a hero is swaths of Africa. And I do feel his heart was in the right place during the immediate hours and days following 9/11, though, sadly, I'm convinced that members of his administration led him straight down the primrose path, with "Co-President," as he has been called by some, Cheney playing the role of the Pied Piper (with which assessment I happen to agree).
+++++
Mr. Levy, I do feel that your discussion of your list of countries falls a bit short in assigning responsibility to the country in question. South Korea is a good example. While some South Koreans think we hung the Moon, others think we advance guards of the Devil himself; there apparently isn't a whole lot of middle ground there. The latter group holds significant sway, particularly in places such as Seoul (major urban area) and in remote patches of the rural countryside.
+++++
Of course, if the North Koreans -- or "North Kooks" -- do something dumb such as launch a missile that strikes Japan or South Korea, even if by honest accident and with no warhead, not even a conventional one, all bets are off regarding South Korean public opinion.
+++++
Despite my somewhat different take, I do find your piece thought-provoking and therefore useful in encouraging public discussion and debate. Thanks for writing it.