CURRENT INTERNATIONAL KERFUFFLES: LARGELY RESULT OF MEDIOCRITY / STUPIDITY OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

The international scene is currently witnessing huge mess ups: Rise of Daesh (ISIL), Yemen mess, Iran nuclear talk circus, Ukraine imbroglio – these are some of the top ones. Then there are the next tier ones: North Korea’s threats, Af-Pak nuisance, climate change buffoonery etc.

Let’s look at the mess in Middle East, including the circus surrounding the Iran nuclear talks: If one carries out impartial root cause analysis, one finds that the mess created is largely attributable to the prevailing mediocrity/stupidity of the personnel advising President Obama and the selective incompetence of the President himself. Let’s briefly explain the above:

v  Obama is not that a fool to not realize the near bankrupt state of American economy and lack of any super-duper technologically advanced military apparatus that can provide significant edge to US over potential threats, like, Iran, North Korea etc. Coupled with this realization, his very lack of necessary personality traits and intellectual sharpness to manage international stage compel him to actively shun contentious international issues. He prefers to behave like an ostrich, like an escapist, buries his head in the sand and pretends there are no issues.

v  Obama’s so-called doctrine of ‘strategic patience and persistence’ (and ‘leading from behind’) is in fact a front for his ‘pathological chronic avoidance and escapism syndrome’ re: international issues. He lacks the swagger required to stride the international stage, lacks the shrewdness, sharpness and courage to engage in geo-political chess game and is seriously deficient in terms of diplomatic suavity.

v  His weakness/hesitancy towards international issues was quickly spotted by the Europeans who “framed’ him in “peace paradigm” by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize at the very outset of his Presidency thereby virtually castrating him of any residual testosterone for any cowboy adventurism.

v  Obama was at best a community organizer who talked his way through to White House. He is plain incompetent for the international side of things that comes with the role and responsibility of being the President of the US. He feels comfortable to deal with soft, social issues. He would probably be best suited being a President of, say, Austria or Sweden where he would just have to handle domestic issues and would not be called upon to play any significant role regarding international hot topics.

v  Again, quick to realize his shortcomings, Obama surrounded himself with advisers who are mediocre and who would pander to his weaknesses and not advise and/or pressure him to go against the grain of his personality traits.

The net result of the above has been that the US vacated the space in Middle East, which was quickly grabbed by Iran and Daesh. In Ukraine, he and his advisers implemented half-baked plans that were not well thought through and were roundly wrong footed by Putin in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

On top of the issues bedevilling BO, he also nurtures a grandiose ambition of leaving behind a legacy of successes (of his tenure). One of them is an agreement with Iran (re: its nuclear ambitions). Another is climate change, plus, others like immigration reform, gay rights and et al.

Obama seems to be so consummated by this legacy thing that he is pursuing the Iran agreement objective with a demonic fervour through his faithful but equally incompetent lackey, Kerry. Obama is not bothered about fall-outs from his psychopathic pursuit of this objective – he is very happy to screw Israel, couldn’t care less if US interests in the Middles East get trashed, is not concerned if the Middle East is unleashed with nuclear race, does not seem at all bothered with potential disastrous impacts on international sea trade routes in the Gulf region and so on.

Obama is like that milksop school boy who would pinch you from behind and giggle from distance; he is not the strong confident type who would engage in a more tough sporting activity. His this sissy type personality aspect can be discerned from how he likes to needle allies, like, Canada, Israel and lectures soft targets, like, India and so on.    

It is unfortunate that at a critical juncture such as this, the US was beset with a wimp like Obama and the world had to face the unfortunate consequences of his weakling and selective incompetence. By the time he leaves White House, he may continue to preside over many events that may come back to haunt generations.

 

Sadly, it is his lack of perspicacity compounded by his intellectual blindness that he is failing to notice his greatest legacy of all and be proud of it – the turnaround of the US economy from brink of disaster. This one stupendous achievement overshadows any potential non-achievement of his presidency – be it failure to reach an agreement with Iran, or, necessity to flex US military might in Middle East and/or Afghanistan-Pakistan or elsewhere to protect interests of the US and its allies. But stubborn as he is, Obama is chasing stuff that may totally cloud the great feat he so painstakingly accomplished. 

USA: A GREAT NATION ON ROAD TO DECLINE – THIRD RATE POLITICIANS AND ASCENDANCY OF MEDIOCRITY PRIMARY CAUSES (PART-I-OBAMA)

If someone is asked to sum up his/her perception of today’s USA in brief, the pearl points might look like this (in no particular order):

·       World’s largest economy

·       Very powerful military – perhaps the most powerful

·       Gargantuan debt (will be financially broke if debt ceilings are not raised continually)

·       Large country, with different areas having different weather patterns

·       Home of the UN and the World Bank

·       Home of some of the biggest corporate entities

·       Land of some top class educational institutions, laboratories, companies

·       Bickering politicians, dysfunctional Congress

·       A presidency that started with a bang (and great promise) seems to be on way to end with a whimper (and disappointment)  

·       Uninspiring leadership

·       Decline at the international stage

·       Massive world-wide electronic surveillance reach

·       Melting pot of immigrants

·       Land of opportunity

Over the last 6-7 years, the general perception of the US has been changing, unfortunately, for the worse – of a nation which is in decline. A decline which is epitomized in the US being regarded more of a rhetoric-loving/reluctant world power than being a dominant/effective world power. The US’s role in Middle East, Ukraine and East Asia has come under fire. Also, with concomitant rise of China as an economic power (and thence stronger military power), America’s influence is getting challenged more and more, East China Sea being a test case.

Just towards the end of George W Bush’s tenure, the financial meltdown took place which caused havoc in the US and the whole of G-7 (barring Canada which came out of it less scathed than its peers). In the last 7 years, the economic state of US worsened: debt ballooned from 4-5 Trillion dollars to >17 Trillion dollars, unemployment reached close to 9%, GDP grew miserably slowly. Since 2013, the employment situation has been improving gradually and GDP growth numbers also looking up. Notwithstanding this gradual improvement, the debt level continues to be a very disturbing element of overall economic health of US.

Six years ago, an unprecedented event took place. US elected its first African-American as its president: Barack Obama. When he took office the Democrats were in power in both houses of Congress, however, in the fall of 2012 the Republicans won majority in the House of Representatives. Ever since Obama got elected, the political dynamics in Washington DC has gone from bad to worse. President Obama rode on anti-war feeling in the country apart from the health care reform platform he had created (later known as Obamacare). The Republicans despise Obamacare, and have been on collision course with him almost on most issues.

So, what are the prime reasons for the apparent decline – the US which used to be perceived as the sole super power striding the world stage unchallenged, is now considered to be a less effective, withdrawing, bumbling, hesitating and reluctant to intervene kind of world power?

The main reasons for this decline could possibly be attributed to the following:

·         Mediocre but ambitious politicians including the president

·         US economy is not as strong as used to be (very high level of debt makes it vulnerable)

·         Apparent decline in military superiority (which is emboldening other countries and radical elements to challenge the US might)

·         Increasing polarization between the rich class – due to their ruthless and aggressive profit making approaches – and the middle and the poorer class 

·         Bad publicity arising out of alleged surveillance carried out by NSA

·         Loss of technological edge and superiority that US used to have in various fields

·         Mediocre, pandering and self-serving media

 

Let’s look at the aforesaid points in brief:
 

Mediocre but ambitious politicians: First, President Obama:

Why Obama conducts American foreign policy (which is said to be predicated on his mantra “don’t do stupid stuff”) the way he does can be explained by the following factors that probably weigh agonizingly heavily on him (when he has to decide about a foreign policy trajectory):

v  United States is too financially broke to get involved militarily in any part of the world (however small the involvement be)

v  As the first African-American president what would be his legacy, how would the historians judge him

v  The millstone of Nobel Peace prize around his neck: Being a recipient of this honor, he is almost death scared of appearing to be pro-war or pro-interventionist (militarily)

v  His presidential campaign platform which was heavily predicated on getting the American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, any scenario that even remotely suggests that American boots may need to be put on a foreign soil, he balks at it, he shudders, he panics

v  His personality: Which is more professorial rather than that of a CEO of a top company who is not fearful of making tough decisions (he almost suffers from paralysis by over-analysis on various international issues, especially, the ones that have potential of the US getting involved militarily). Consequently he painfully dithers on an on.

On thorny international issues, Obama tends to behave like an escapist, like an ostrich that buries his head and thinks the threat has gone away, Obama just wishes the problems go away on their own. He is a shy person; he does not like socializing with his foreign counterparts or the politicians in Washington DC, that’s why he fails to cobble up coalitions or agreements abroad or at home. He is just not the type of a leader who could fearlessly play political chess games executing different stratagems.

Obama does not like the role of a global policeman; he believes that the international issues would get solved just through delivering a lecture – whether at home or abroad – using pompous phrases that make good sound bytes. But he forgets that some responsibilities automatically devolve to the president of the USA as soon as s/he gets to sit in the Oval Office – being a global policeman, unfortunately, is one of them. After the breakup of Soviet Union, the world had come to accept that the US will generally set and/or manage the global agenda, pre-empt events, thwart evil designs and so on. But Obama does not relish at all presiding over such activities.

Obama seems to have a tendency to needle people, especially, the allies. He seems to relish needling Canada, harangue Israel, or create instability in innocuous countries. He does not seem to be getting along that well with the British too. In fact, he is not pally with any international leader unlike some of his predecessors.

On a related topic, Obama, of late, seems to be behaving in a weird manner. In a recent speech he said he does not ‘sympathize with Hamas’. Really? How can someone, in one’s sane mind, ever think of using the word ‘sympathy’ in relation to Hamas? Also for some strange reason, he does not condemn ISIS in strong terms. It seems Obama believes that if he avoids being harsh to Hamas or elements like ISIS, threat to US would be less from these terror outfits. If he indeed thinks on these lines, he should get his head examined. Seriously.  

Obama tends to look far ahead on some grand design but shies away from near or medium term realities. The five factors listed above seem to virtually paralyze him whenever he is deciding on a course of action on a tricky international situation – whether it is Syria or Iraq or Ukraine or East China Sea. He somehow tries to keep postponing his decision making under the pretext of ‘situation analysis’/’information gathering’.

Due to the above pattern of his conduct in regard to international issues, Obama’s personal image, and by extension, US’s image (internationally and to many Americans domestically) has more or less morphed in to that of:

-      Dithering

-      Weak

-      Unreliable

-      More of hot air than action

Some of America’s allies have realized that they might have to fend for themselves. Japan has already started working towards developing necessary military muscle to deal with any hostility on its own (potentially with China because of the disputed islands in East China Sea), Israel is going ahead on its own in its fight against Hamas, the Saudis are devising their own strategy vis-à-vis Iran and Sunni extremists ISIS. Turkey is an unhappy ally, so are some of the other allies of the US.

Surely, there has been a decline in respect to US’s stature at the international stage. The tragedy is that probably this decline was avoidable notwithstanding the near bankrupt state of the American economy. Some other person, who was not living under the crushing weight of the five factors listed above, might have been able to adopt different strategies, and thus might have been successful in maintaining the image the US had till President George W. Bush’s tenure. This is indeed sad for the people of the United States. They are feeling it, realizing it and are conveying their frustration through various opinion polls.  

BALOONING DEFICIT, INABILITY TO FLEX MILITARY MUSCLE, FALLING RATINGS PUT OBAMA IN TIGHT SPOT – MAY SURPRISE PEOPLE WITH A DIFFERENT PERSONA

Let’s start with President Obama’s list of predicaments regarding international issues that is enabling his political detractors to portray him as a wimp:

De-nuclearization of Iran: United States is trying its best to avoid any option of use of force. Reason: With 17 trillion dollar deficit, US is virtually broke. It simply does not have money to spend on any military excursion – even the minor ones will add to the back breaking penury of US. Moreover, there is tremendous aversion in the American public toward another direct involvement. Furthermore, in case of Iran, any military option, which should be perhaps be a recourse of last resort, to be effective would need to be at a scale which would be prohibitively expensive for America and too heavy for war-weary American people’s will.

As a result, US is trying to tough talk its way to some face saving outcome with Iran. But, unfortunately, Iran apparently knows the monetary constraints of US to engage in any military action and would take advantage of the same anticipating correctly the trajectory of American diplomatic maneuverings of Kerry and the like.

However, a lot of American politicians from both sides of the isle are apprehensive of and uncomfortable with the approach US is adopting and do not seem to be very optimistic about a meaningful outcome. The Democrat front-runner of 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton has said (as reported by NBC News website) “The odds of reaching that comprehensive agreement are not good,” Clinton said, per the Washington Post. “I am also personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver. I have seen their behavior over the years…”.

Syrian crisis: US policy on Syria has been predicated on being hesitant to get directly involved, again, due to virtual financial bankruptcy of the US economy and war weariness of the American people. President Obama said Syria had “red line” when Assad regime used chemical weapons against the rebels. The world thought US would take some punitive actions through air strikes but at the last moment Obama went to the Congress to seek authorization for such an action which was turned down (by the Congress) as expected. There was huge disappointment with the ‘hawkish’ elements, like, Republican Senator John McCain and others. Obama looked timid, dithering and mousy.

The Assad regime seems to be reclaiming territories lost to the rebels. However, it is said that Obama administration’s reluctance toward any deeper involvement stems from presence of Muslim extremist elements fighting against Assad’s forces. It seems Obama administrations would prefer less extremist minded Assad prevail rather than Al-Qaida or Taliban type forces to win – this may not be a bad idea but unfortunately, for Obama, his detractors do not want to see that way.

Ukraine crisis: Russians have annexed Crimea and are now seem to be consolidating their position in the newly acquired region. The US and the European allies have imposed sanctions and articulated lot of tough sounding verbiage. However, all this does not seem to have caused any perceptible impact on Putin and his coterie. Obama detractors in the US are, again, criticizing him imputing Putin’s actions to his alleged ‘weak’ stance at the international stage.

It must be said that there was simply nothing that US or the Europeans could do in Crimea because of proximity between Russia and Crimea, and logistical challenges for the western powers to undertake any preventive action militarily. The only thing that may, however, be pointed out is that West was probably too lost in the euphoria and celebration of having caused the pro-Russian President of Ukraine and his cronies to flee, and failed to anticipate Russian reaction to it. The West remained oblivious of Russia’s sensitivities to developments in Ukraine which Russia considers as their backyard and also the century old historical linkages between the two.

US troops presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014: President Obama has yet to make a decision on the size of a post-2014 US force in Afghanistan after a 13-year war that has become highly unpopular among the American public. Outgoing President Karzai surprised the international community and many Afghans in December 2013 when he ignored the recommendation of an assembly of tribal leaders and other dignitaries to sign it, saying he would leave the final decision to his successor after 5 April elections.

A bipartisan delegation of US Senators to Afghanistan called on President Barack Obama this week to announce a decision on his plans for future troop levels in the country, on the assumption a much-delayed security pact eventually will eventually be signed with Kabul. One of the delegation members, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a Republican, said Obama should not wait for that to give an idea of what the US presence would look like after the Nato-led combat mission ends at the end of this year. This issue is confounding Obama and his reticence on the subject is providing ammunition to his opponents to criticize him for his indecisiveness.

Then there are some other issues that is causing headache to Obama:

Strains in relations with Israel: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is not very happy with the American policy trajectory on Iran and pressure on Israel to make some hard choices before 29^th April toward resolution of Israel-Palestine imbroglio.

Since the global powers reached an interim agreement with Iran last November, Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran have been largely ignored. A frustrated Israeli leadership now appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to take a tough position in its negotiations with Iran. A front-page headline in the daily Haaretz this week reported that Netanyahu has ordered “to prep for strike on Iran in 2014” and has allocated US$2.87 billion for the groundwork. Earlier this week, Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon hinted that Israel would have to pursue a military strike on its own, with the U.S. having chosen the path of negotiations.

Whether Israel would translate its rhetoric in action remains to be seen and seems improbable, nevertheless the above mentioned developments were meant to jolt the global powers as a wake-up call.

Drop in approval ratings: Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in March shows President Obama's job approval moved down to 41% in March from 43% in January, marking a new low. Some 54% disapproved of the job he is doing, matching a previous high from December, when the botched roll-out of his signature health law played prominently in the news. The latest survey also showed the lowest-ever approval in Journal/NBC polling for Mr. Obama's handling of foreign policy.

Democrats’ worry about losing Senate in November elections: As per NBC News, prominent figures still associated with President Obama and his White House team are sounding the alarm bell that the Democratic Party could lose the Senate -- if not more -- in November. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Democrats’ control of the Senate was “definitely” in danger.

NBC News also reports that due to falling approval rating of Obama some vulnerable Democrats are already shunning Obama’s assistance. The president reportedly acknowledged his lackluster approval ratings during his meeting with Senate Democrats at a retreat recently.

The Democrat candidates Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina are especially keen on distancing themselves from Obama because of his overt opposition to Keystone XL pipeline project. The above mentioned four senators joined the Canadian Ambassador to US, labor union leaders and others in February this year to express support for this project. Obama has stated that he would give his decision by end of April. If he rejects this project, these four senators’ political future and Democrats’ hopes of retaining majority in Senate would be almost surely be compromised.

‘Weight’ of Nobel Peace Prize: President Obama seems to be continually weighed down by Nobel Peace Prize conferred on him – he seems to be struggling with himself on every issue that involves potential of military option; he seems to feel hand cuffed and suffer from dissonance within himself due to this prize (and unsaid expectation that came with it). As well, Obama seems to be very worried about the legacy he would leave behind and how history would judge him on various issues – be it US interventionism, or stand on environment, or bipartisanship at Capitol Hill and so on.

So, what might Obama do now? It is quite clear that President Obama needs to do something different to shake off the following perception:

·       Professorial, less of a man in command at helm

·       Speaks too much (from scripted speeches)

·       More words, less of actual action (esp. regarding international matters)

·       Afraid of re-calibrating his stance on issues (which explains his being fearful of environmental lobby)

·       Paralysis by over analysis

·       Unreliable, shifty, dithering, indecisive

·       Worried about legacy and Nobel Peace Prize expectation

In order to deal with the above mentioned perception issues and not get relegated to being a lame duck president for two years, Obama needs to change tack, take decisive stands (e.g., he should okay Keystone XL instead of being cowed down by some of his so-called donors). Hopefully, the Democrats would see an invigorated, crisp, concise, bold person who is not worried about how history will judge him. After all, two years is too long a period to remain in a semi-retired ineffectual state waiting for the term to be over. One is remembered in history not because one shied away from unpopular stands but because one overcame one’s shyness to take a right stand.

WITH CRIMEA ALREADY DE-FACTO OCCUPIED BY RUSSIA, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR WESTERN WORLD?

Not sure whether it is living in denial or utter stupidity, the Western media (TV channels) is still NOT characterizing the situation of Crimea as of Saturday 01 March as de-facto occupation by the Russian forces - the situation is being described as “so many thousands of Russian military personnel are reported to be present in that peninsular region of Ukraine”. Anyway, the fact of the matter is that, for all intents and purposes, Crimea is now under de-facto occupation of the Russian forces.

One reason for being in state of denial could be that if the Western media reports that Crimea is under de-facto occupation of the Russian forces, it would in the same breath convey admission of failure of western world to protect that region. It would be embarrassing, obviously.

Be that as it may, the question is: What can the western world do? It is to be kept in mind that Russian President Putin has obtained backing of the upper house of his Parliament to use force in Ukraine (not just in Crimea) to ‘protect Russian people in that country’, so, any use of force has been validated by the Russians never mind that the such a permission may not have admissibility in the eyes of international law.

Why Crimea is important for Russia?

·       This region provides only warm water port to the Russians. Mind you, for centuries Russians have felt handicapped by unavailability of warm water ports. The Russians were very clever in having an agreement with Ukraine allowing them to station a naval fleet in Crimea; Russia keeps a major naval base in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, where its Black Sea Fleet is based. Apparently, Russia's lease on the Sevastopol base lasts until 2040’s.

·       Also keep in mind, the majority of the Black Sea coastline is held by NATO allies except for Georgia on the east, which is actively seeking NATO membership, and Ukraine in the north. Therefore, without a naval base in Crimea Russia is severely crippled as a global military power.

·       The Russians have a historical wound too in regard to Crimea. Many will have heard of Crimean War of 1853-1856 – the war was a result of rival imperial ambitions, when Britain and France, suspicious of Russian ambitions in the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire declined, sent troops to Crimea to peg them back. Russia had lost; they have not forgotten that humiliation.

How the de-facto occupation of Crimea helps Putin?

·       It gives him a reason to be part of any negotiations that Ukraine might have to undertake to resolve the current crisis.

·       The de-facto occupation of Crimea would potentially embolden the pro-Russia population in the Eastern regions of Ukraine, namely, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaphorizia, Odessa and to some extent, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv to rally and consolidate. This would also help Putin in having a stronger hand and leverage at the negotiating table.

·       The above-mentioned regions and Crimea may have to be given more autonomy in any eventual negotiated settlement which will work in Russia’s favour. Furthermore, the above mentioned regions would provide counterbalance to pro-western regions of Ukraine.

·       Russia would also like to have some guarantee for the safety and security of the gas lines passing through Ukraine to Europe. Having a strong indirect foothold in Ukraine would potentially provide Russians that assurance. These pipelines are a source of revenue for Russia as well as they are a lever for keeping pressure on the end user countries too, albeit, in a limited manner (remember, Russia had threatened to turn off the gas supply to some countries few years back due to gas price disagreement).

Options of western countries:

The western countries do not seem to have any effective short-term leverage against the Russians. The Security Council meeting on 1^st March practically yielded nothing. It does not seem it would be possible to get any stronger sanction like clearance from the UN Security Council because of veto power of Russia.

Some symbolical actions were taken by western countries, e.g., Canada recalled its ambassador from Moscow on 1^st March and suspended its engagement in preparations for the G8 Summit. President Obama spoke for 90 minutes with Putin wherein apparently he made clear that Russia's continued violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia's standing in the international community

But the above are generally jejune demonstration that the western countries are doing something.

However, some long term measures may be viable:

·       Economic/Trade sanctions: This would require cooperation amongst western economic powers and the international institutions, like, IMF.

·       If alternative supplies of gas could be arranged for the European consumers, in that case the gas supply from Russia can be refused permission by Ukraine. This would hurt the Russians surely. However, this would take time.

·       Western powers can engender a military buildup in Putin’s backyard.  NATO membership for Georgia, with the advanced weapon systems and training it will bring, will contribute toward degrading Russian national security. The port of Batumi could also serve as an important military asset for the western powers.

Opportunity for Canada:

The Ukraine crisis is the best time for Canada to make a case to the end user European countries (of Russian gas supply) to import LNG from Canada and move away from Russian dependency. If the Europeans agree to this alternative, which would take 6-7 years to put in place, would give additional/alternative market for Canadian LNG (aside from potential Asian customers). Of course, for this to happen, British Columbia and the Federal agencies would need to hasten the process of approvals and policies in place so that the investing companies can make final investment decisions within 2014.  

Summary:

The Ukraine crisis looks like going to be a long drawn chess game between the Russians and the western bloc. There is a potential that Ukraine may exist as a divided country in the coming years. The western powers would have to work in concert and chalk out long term social, economic, and military strategy to checkmate the Russians. Unfortunately, Ukraine would be a pawn in this geo-political chess game.

The intelligence apparatus of the western countries seem to have been caught napping at the present time, however, they will have to pull their socks up for the long haul. It would not be easy to outflank, outwit the Russians, but if the western countries cooperate and play their cards well, they would be able to gain upper hand eventually. Patience and some guts would definitely be needed on the part of the western bloc in all this.

HOPE OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE BLATHER

The buzz word ‘climate change’ was used by President Obama in his joint press conference with Canada PM Stephen Harper during the recent Three Amigos meeting in Toluca, Mexico. Obama was responding to question on Keystone XL pipeline.

In the Liberal Party of Canada convention held in Montreal in the last week of February, the Liberal leader Justin Trudeau also used this buzz word in the context of development of Canada’s natural resources (clearly the allusion was toward oil sands development).

While Obama habitually talks about climate change in the context of Keystone XL pipeline project as if climate change is on the line due to this project – this of course is a preposterous correlation, self-intuitive to someone who is endowed with reasonable amount of intellectual faculties – it is not clear where Trudeau stands on the above correlation. But Liberals also have a habit of mentioning ‘environment’ and ‘climate change’ in a parrot-like manner in their speeches.

Now, let’s see whether the phrase ‘climate change’ is appropriate to use in the context of some different weather conditions seen in some parts of the world, for instance, polar vortex which brought quite cold temperatures in parts of US not experienced in many years. So, if a certain winter becomes relatively colder or a summer is relatively hotter than usual, does it provide sound basis to trumpet the phrase ‘climate change’?

It is well know that the meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region, i.e., climate, are known to be have been different (more severe/less severe) during certain year or years if one looks at hundreds of years data for a given region. So, the point is that: differences in meteorological conditions in a certain winter or summer should not be confused as climate change, rather the more appropriate phase would be ‘climate aberration’.

In 2014, winter has been relatively colder in certain parts of the world, due to the wider impact of polar vortex, all this should be viewed/studied as climate aberration instead of jumping up and down like a clown parroting the phrase climate change. If the temperature, precipitation data of a certain area shows a longer trend of change, then the new set of data could possibly qualify as a basis to characterize a change as climate change.

The next question to ask in the context of so-called climate change, which should actually be referred to as climate aberration, should be: Do the so-called environment scientists really know what is causing the climate aberration(s) of recent years? Why this question is important to ask because the so-called environment scientists have been ascribing the climate aberrations to GHG – first they coined the phrase ‘global warming’, but when winters started to get colder they switched on to this phrase ‘climate change’.

It is well known that factors most responsible for earth’s temperature are water vapour, methane, solar activity, earth’s magnetic effect, Gulf Stream among many other factors, including CO_2, about which the scientists are still not fully knowledgeable about. However, CO₂ is certainly not the main culprit – by no stretch of rational imagination.

So, if CO₂ is not the main culprit for climate aberrations and since emission of this gas is associated with oil sands for levelling all sorts of (irrational) criticism against oil sands’ development, it is clear that Canada’s this very vital resource (namely, oil sands) is not the critical factor for the climate aberrations one is witnessing in recent past, no way!

Hopefully, the Liberals would remember this when they deal with the subject of oil sands development whether as part of any government or any debate within and/or outside Canada. Hopefully, they would also remember the huge contribution oil sands has made to Canada – this fact has been clearly brought out by a recent study by IHS CERA called ‘Oil Sands Economic Benefits: Today and in the future, January 2014’.

And, by the way, if, for argument sake, CO₂ happened to be the main culprit (which it is NOT!), is any one on this planet in a position to shut down ALL CO₂ emitting operations all over the world with a snap of a finger? Of course, not! Can fossil fuel consumption be brought down to zero in next 5 or 10 or 15 years? Of course, not! Not even in next 50 years!

But what CAN be done is to develop resources like oil sands in a responsible manner, meaning, using processes which emit lesser GHG and causes minimal impact on environment. Hopefully, the Liberals would understand and remember this, Trudeau seemed to be okay with ‘responsible development of natural resources’ as he put it in his address to delegates on 22 February 2014.

Obama may not want to see things in scientifically rational manner for his own reasons/agenda, but the Canadian political parties of different stripes need to see and deal with the subject of oil sands development in rational manner and not kill it or stifle it out of some foolish political jingoism. The parties would do well to remember an old English saying that cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face does not help anyone! Certainly not Canada!

WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA WANT TO LEAVE BEHIND A LEGACY OF BOTCHED UP RELATIONS WITH SOME OF AMERICA’s CLOSEST ALLIES?

Based on conventional knowledge, the following countries have been some of the closest allies of United States (in no particular order):

-     Canada

-     Israel

-     Saudi Arabia

As situation stands today, the above countries are feeling frustrated, upset with and mistrustful of United States. Let’s look at each of them why this is so:

Canada: There are very close ties between the US and Canada in terms of trade (NAFTA), cultural relationship and military cooperation/alliance, e.g., NORAD. At international level, Canada and the US share membership of G-7, G-20, Asia-Pacific economic cooperation and many more. Canada is a stable, democratic country and, arguably, has been a trusted friend/partner of the US since the World Wars. But in the recent past, the actions on part US have been continually demonstrating huge negativity toward Canada. The main fly in the ointment has been the pipeline projects that emanate from Canada and end up inside the US, especially, the Keystone XL project. This project is being evaluated by US authorities for the last 5 years – and President Obama, for some strange reason, has made this project as a scapegoat of his pro-environment stance.

It is okay to be worried about global warming but to hold clearance of a pipeline project (which is supposed to transport only 830,000 bbl/day of bitumen from Canada) on the premise that it would be cleared only if it does not ‘significantly add to GHG emission’  is utterly nonsensical. That this notion was indeed utterly stupid has been corroborated by the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012 Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, issued by the US State Department on 31^st January 2014. One has to be an outstandingly stubborn moron to not approve this project which is clearly not going to have any significant impact on environment. Remember, on this project a lot hinges as far as Canadian economy is concerned. As well, mind you, Canada is far stricter in terms of environment regulations than the various countries, like, China, who are dumping huge amounts of GHG.

It is simply Obama’s obstinacy, and perhaps nothing else, which is standing in the way of approval of this project. The question is: Why should US display this kind of obstinacy, and consequently sour up relations with a trusted partner, especially, at a time when US is increasingly finding it reduced in stature and/or ineffective in various current international scenarios? US is being snubbed, rebuked, ignored, shown the middle finger by friends and foes alike – whether  it is Syrian crisis or Ukraine upheaval or the China/Japan tension over  Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Instead of having a trusted friend, like, Canada alongside at this juncture, the US would appear to be willy nilly hell bent on screwing up that nice, warm, cordial relationship. And for what? Just to placate a small section of democrat supporters who anyway are so fanatical that it is impossible to reason out with them on environment issues?  Whether this fanaticism is based on some quid pro quo and/or some sort of incentivizing, that’s a separate matter? But this motley crowd is too small a cause for which a long standing, time tested friendship should be sacrificed!! But, unfortunately, then, the dithering Obama has allowed himself to be led by his nose by this motley crowd, or, so it seems!

Israel: Ties between Israel and the US are historic in nature and the Americans have always let the world know from the roof tops that US is the closest ally of Israel. But of late, the policy trajectories the current US administration seem to be following with respect to Middle East and Iran have been irritating Israel more than anything else. They seem to be so pissed off that recently the Israeli Defense Minister rebuked John Kerry in one of the strongest languages rarely seen in diplomatic talk and certainly unheard of between these two countries. Again, the question to ask would be: Why the hell US is doing this? Is it because the chip Obama carries on his shoulder – the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it because he wants to leave a legacy of a peace-maker even if it means steam rolling over Israel’s concerns? The US policy on Iran has also riled up Israel. Reason? Because, the Israelis maintain that it is absolutely unclear whether the agreements with Iran can REALLY be verified. Moreover, Russia has already started providing financial succor to Iran which would thence enable it to negotiate from a relatively stronger position than before.

It is clear that the US is almost beseeching the heavens for some kind of face saving agreement with Iran because of its virtual financial bankruptcy and inability to fight another war. But, from Israel’s perspective, these constraints should not conspire to dump an agreement on the concerned parties (i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia) which they are not comfortable with. The back channel talks between the US and Iran in Oman did not go down very well with the above-mentioned two countries.

Further, Iran is known to be experts in double speak – this coupled with the embarrassing inability of US intelligence to monitor things within Iran renders overseeing, policing and enforcing any agreement with Iran completely doubtful and useless. No wonder, Israelis are concerned and incensed over American unilateralism and head in the sand approach. The Israelis see this as, again, an obstinate Obama’s desperate attempt to achieve something, which his Republican predecessor could not, and pat his own back (and have some material for the so-called historians to write later).

One can’t say for sure what the outcome will be of the above mentioned efforts of the US in the Middle East, but one thing is for sure, their relations with Israel (and Saudi Arabia) have hit unprecedented low. The US has succeeded in pissing off one their much avowed closest allies in the region. And, what is the real gain for the US in all this? Have they (the Americans) accounted for the loss of trust equity in all this?

Saudi Arabia: This close ally of the US is terribly upset because of Syrian policy followed by President Obama. The Saudis are so upset that Obama is travelling to that country in March to mend relations. The Saudis’ actions in the Syrian theater have apparently made it clear to the US that the Saudis can play spoil sport in Syrian imbroglio and without their support some of the anti-Assad factions can NOT be corralled. The Saudis are also upset over the way the US is handling the Iran matter. They see this is an attempt by the US to counterbalance their (Saudis) Sunni influence in the region. They have also not liked the US’s stance and countenance vis-à-vis Qatar’s activities in Syria and Egypt.

Clearly, the Obama administration has ended up screwing up relations with another of its close ally by following some policy trajectories which are not only seeming to be ineffective but giving more time to the adversaries of Saudi Arabia and Israel in recovering/recouping – this applies to the current regimes in Syria and Iran. This does not bode well from Israel’s and Saudi’s perspective; obviously, they are badly cut up with the Obama administration.

Summary: The current US administration has probably forgotten that loud talks mean nothing in international diplomacy if they can’t be demonstrably backed up by force. The US is being increasingly perceived to be a groveling patsy – be it with respect to Iran, China, or Syria issue – trying to further its own interests without bothering whether or not it destroys time-tested relations with some of its closest allies. US is also being perceived as someone who starts with a loud mouth but ends up in a whimper with no matching guts to provide any teeth to their big pronouncements (“Syria has crossed a red line”, the famous line Obama spoke!). No wonder Kerry is at pains to explain, time and again, in international forums that US is not retreating from global issues. 

Clearly, the current administration’s policies towards Canada and Israel in particular have been baffling to say at the very best and bull-headed at the worst. Obama and his cronies have been continually needling these two countries on some frivolous and some not so frivolous pretexts. In all this, what has the US achieved? Not only it is risking serious damage to the friendly relations with these two countries, it is sowing seeds of deliberate miscalculations in its policy making which could potentially backfire on the US in the long run. Is it sign of intelligent policy implementation strategy or sign of a stubborn gutless loser who is desperate to leave behind some legacy which he can trumpet about later as unprecedented achievements  never mind even if they came at the cost of screwing up long standing friendships, or bringing NO REAL benefit to the US over the longer term? 

HEALTHCARE REFORM IN USA – WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS FIND THEMSELVES FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t! That is the kind of situation the Democrats are finding themselves in at the moment on the issue of health care reform in US.

First of all, what the heck is this so-called healthcare reform? Did the message not go out to masses in US as to what this reform is all about? Did the message not go out loud and CLEAR why this reform is needed by US economy?

Well, as expected the opposition, i.e., Republicans did their best in attacking the reform and along with it the Democrats. The Republicans succeeded in confusing the issue – they got the so-called tea parties organized, they used the stream of media, which supports them, to fullest advantage. And in their efforts, it is also alleged (and it seems this may be true) that they were strongly supported with all the resources by the vested interests, namely, Insurance lobby.

Result: The anti-Democrats are dead against the reform; and the Democrat vote base is hugely confused about efficacy of this reform, if any.

Things that helped the Republicans: Essentially poor dissemination of information about the urgency of this reform, and why the reform is important for US. There was hardly any coherent and sustained dissemination as to the need for reform in order to save the American economy in the long run.

If this reform is/was so darn important from the economic standpoint for the average American and US as a whole, then why was this friggin' message not spread by the dint of the loudest of the drums?

· There was hopelessly feeble rebuttal of dis-information/mis-information spread regarding ‘Death Panels’, applicability of the reform to illegal immigrants, public option and so on.
· There was no proactive planning to anticipate Republican negative campaign and counter it – the town hall meetings were hardly arranged in numbers by Democrats that could effectively dispel and rebut the dis-information/mis-information spread by the vested interests.
· Democrats (including President Obama) and the supportive media tended to use long winded professorial verbiage to explain the purported advantages of health care reform and/or rebut Republican sponsored dis-information/mis-information.

So, the net result is that the upcoming elections (and to be held in Nov 2010) are making Democrats jittery – the once safe Senate seat of Massachusetts is going to the wire now. If the Republicans win that seat, life for the Democrats in the Senate will become lot more difficult in terms of getting new legislative measures put in place.

Did Obama bite more than he could chew? Not if this was the only issue to be dealt with. Did he underestimate the bog-down potential of the various issues that were on his plate in the first year of his presidency? The turn of events seem to suggest so.

Can anything be done by the Democrats to salvage the situation? Yes! Arrange a nation-wide barn storming campaign to clarify the confusion/questions the average American has with regard to health reform; and to explain how s/he stands to benefit (individually immediately and as society as a whole in the long run), how USA stands to benefit, the perils to US economy if health care aspect is not handled properly NOW.

Also, the campaign needs to stress that health care is not a Democrat or Republican issue – it is a human being issue, a national issue for the future of USA. Is it a bit too late in the day? May be, but no harm in trying.

And, for God’s sakes simple short sentences have to be used to explain the various aspects of the reform. Long sentences with journalistic verbosity are never helpful in communication with masses– this simple cardinal rule of mass communication needs to be drilled in the heads of the Democrat speech writers and the so-called liberal media practitioners.

President Obama is said to have lots of tenacity – he needs to bring all of that now to get over this major hump in his current political journey. He seems to be sincere, working for and on behalf of the people of US for the greater good of the society. If this is true, the power that be from the Heavens above will turn the course in favour of the good-doer.

TOO MUCH ON OBAMA’S PLATTER – BUSH ERA MESS, HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES, AND HAVING TO COUNTER REPUBLICAN ONSLAUGHTS!

If one sees the current challenges facing President Obama one can’t but help feel empathetic for him. Only someone utterly insane or the greatest rogue practitioner of political antagonism would allude that Obama is not working for the interests of USA. As well, to any sane and impartial observer it would be apparent that Obama is bogged down in too many things at one time.

The major issues which he has to contend with currently can be grouped under following heads:

Mess left behind by George W. Bush administration – These include:
· The worst economic situation since the great depression of 1930s and hopeless action planning to deal with it in medium and long term;
· No clear cut politico-military strategy in Afghanistan;
· Confused policy vis-à-vis dealing with Pakistan, Taliban and the Af-Pak region;
· Highly strained relations (with a dash of mistrust) with Russia;
· One of the most inept, languid, direction-less handling of Middle-East ever seen;
· Convoluted one-step-forward-two-step-backward policy on Iran;
· Half-hearted policy endeavours with regard to dealing with North Korea;
· Disastrous policy stances on environment;
· Myopic goals clouding economic and strategic planning vis-à-vis China;
· Rushed through and muddled exit strategy from Iraq;
· Highly negative international image of USA.

Election campaign promises of President Obama – These include:
· Health care reform;
· Closure of Guantanamo Bay prison camps;
· Changes in environment policy of US;
· Reforming the way Wall Street operates and curbs on Wall Street fat cats;
· Reducing/neutralizing the stranglehold of lobbyists and power brokers in Washington.

Republican antagonism – These include:
· Obstruct any and every change that President Obama is trying to bring about (even if it means selling one’s soul to corporate business interests in order to thwart Obama);
· Criticize everything that Obama says nationally or internationally, including, his body language (his well-mannered gentle bow to Japan’s Emperor was foolishly criticized by the Republicans);
· Pray and hope that US lose where Obama makes some effort for the country (example: US effort to bring 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago);
· Belittle a prize of the stature of Nobel Peace Prize;
· Pooh pooh due diligence performed by American President in arriving at some key policy decision (example: the thorough decision making process regarding troops surge in Afghanistan);
· Criticize rescinding of US decision to deploy anti-missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic.

It is so unfortunate that the list of mess (of major issues; minor issues are too numerous to be enumerated) left behind by Dubya and his cronies is so long. It certainly is not something to be proud of for any president (who has the slightest sense of self-esteem, shame and achievement).

The worst and the most damning legacy of Bush-era is the systemic and structural failure of the financial system of Wall Street which was presided over by (the obstinate pro-Republican) Alan Greenspan. Following the disastrous economic downturn the band-aid response that was crafted by Bush’s economic advisors was no less shameful and inadequate.

On top of Bush-era’s long list of mess, Obama is trying hard to implement his election campaign promises. Obviously, his plate gets crowded with too many items. Sensing this, the defeated and humbled Republicans are trying to pounce upon each and every opportunity regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.

Somehow surprisingly the brunt of Republican attacks is largely being borne by President Obama himself. The other Democrat personalities don’t seem to be getting involved or pitching in early enough in responding to and/or rebutting the Republican salvos. This is bringing additional pressure on the President.

Moreover, Obama was initially pushing for the best outcome of any policy change initiative brought about at Capitol Hill or at international stage. However, he is realizing that more often than not the politicians – be it Republicans or Blue Democrats – give a damn for the good of the masses or the country; their first priority is self-preservation and self-perpetuation, rest everything is secondary.

One hopes that the powers, which apparently subsist in and operate from levels beyond what human imagination can fathom, will provide the necessary force and support behind the well-meaning efforts of the current US president because it is unimaginable, to a sane and rational mind, that the US president is not acting for the best interests of United States. One will have to wait to see whether the good intentions won in the long run or the kitchen sink politics of Washington prevailed!