| 31.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Michael said it all better than I probably ever could in his "Time To Say Goodbye" explaining the shuttered doors here at Across the Pond, but let me add a few notes. This blog brought me a lot of satisfaction for all the reasons Mr. Knigge mentioned -- it succeeded, if I may toot our own horn, beyond my wildest dreams, by getting picked up by the Los Angeles Timeses and Time magazines and the like, and by inspiring fevered debate amongst readers, and in countless other ways. It also had value to me beyond whether anyone saw it; the daily demand of blogging forced me to pay close attention to developing story lines and policy shifts and thereby enhanced my understanding of foreign policy, so I learned a good deal along the way. Michael made me blush with his kind words, but another joy of the site was reading his work. Not only does the man truly understand U.S. politics and policy, but it was a constant delight getting his perspective on the practices of the U.S. government and candidates for office thereof. He had a special talent for catching our absurdities that only someone who didn't live here would notice, and for contrasting how we do things on this side of the pond to how they do things on his side, and it was always illuminating. Before, during and after Barack Obama's Germany trip, he made this blog THE go-to site for information and analysis, in my opinion. And he's a true pal. If you're a regular reader, I encourage you to continue to check out all the "interesting links" along the right hand rail in lieu of us. If you value regular insights on foreign policy and politics, my friends at Foreign Policy, Porch Dog and elsewhere will leave you in good hands. DW-WORLD, too, is a great source of foreign policy information whether or not you're from Germany or focused on German news. Thanks to Michael, thanks to Deutsche Welle and thanks to all the readers over the last year who dropped by, gave us a look, offered their quality insights and smacked us around. Farewell. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 31.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| For the first and last time here at Across the Pond I am writing not about international affairs but about our blog itself. I usually eschew writing about one's journalistic product and processes, because first, I believe the product should speak for itself and second, I don't think many readers are interested in journalists explaining how and why they do what they do. But in this case, it's different since we will close Across the Pond at the end of March and this will be my last post. So why are we ending our transatlantic blogging venture on international affairs from a German and American perspective? Our original goal was to cover the U.S. election from a unique transatlantic perspective. But to be honest, when we launched Across the Pond a year ago we had no idea whether it would work. Would there be an audience for this kind of a blog? Could we get Across the Pond linked by relevant blogs and sites? Would we have the creativity and stamina to write entries on a daily basis? In hindsight, I believe we can answer all those questions with a resounding yes. Our blog project with two journalists posting from across the pond did work. There definitely was an audience for a blog like ours as evidenced by the many comments and traffic we have received. It was rewarding to see how many important sites noticed our work and linked, often repeatedly, to Across the Pond (among them, Time Magazine, the Huffington Post, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, the Council on Foreign Relations to name just a few). And I believe that, for the most part, we possessed the ideas and endurance to keep the blog fresh and interesting. So why are we quitting Across the Pond then? The answer is simple: This project from the beginning was only meant to cover the U.S. election. Across the Pond always was a true labor of love. It had nothing to do with our respective day jobs, so almost all of our writing was done in late evenings that often turned into late nights and on weekend afternoons. And it was a great challenge and even greater fun trying to come up with something worthwile to say every day. After the election, we continued with the blog simply driven by the journalistic impetus to also cover the first months of an historic presidency. But while an election campaign has a clear focus, timeline and political players, covering the foreign policy of a historic presidency with its abundance of topics, venues and players is a whole different ballgame. And while I am confident that Tim and I would be able to report on the vast field that is American foreign policy under Obama as well, it won't be possible under the conditions and framework of Across the Pond. But could there be a better moment to sign off as when President Obama embarks on his first official visit to Europe one year after we launched Across the Pond? I think not. In closing, let me first thank all the readers and commentators who have followed Across the Pond over the past year. You are the reason why we started this blog. I hope you enjoyed reading the blog at least as half as much as I had writing it. Second, a big thank you goes out to my blogging alter ego Tim in Washington. Without him, Across the Pond wouldn't have been possible. Tim is the only person I know who is equally well versed in writing about boxing and analyse the advantages of a southpaw as in writing about foreign policy and analyse domestic surveillance practices. He is not only an excellent reporter with flawless copy, but just has an amazing knack to find and explain the one aspect of the major story that every one else has overlooked. And last but not least, Tim is not just a great journalist, but also a good friend. Thanks again Tim. Final thanks are also due to my wife, who for a year had to not only endure a husband hogging the family computer at night. She also had to deal with a frequently sleep-deprived partner. What's more, especially in the early months of Across the Pond, she was of invaluable help telling me what did or what didn't work. Thank you. While we won't update Across the Pond any longer, it will remain online and can perhaps serve as an instant history file of the Obama election. Thank you and so long! |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| With President Obama set to announce a new strategy for Afghanistan, it's worth examining the intelligence problem posed by that country. It is, by any measure, daunting. Max Bergmann recently wrote that saying Afghanistan is "harder" than Iraq is "Monday morning quarterbacking." After all, the United States muddled through Iraq for years before things stabilized somewhat. He has a point. And although he says the question isn't very helpful, he makes an eloquent case for it being directly relevant to the whole question of the U.S. strategy: "If we are truly committed to Afghanistan and believe that it is harder than Iraq, shouldn’t we be committing more resources and manpower to Afghanistan than we did in Iraq?" But is Bergmann right that Afghanistan isn't "harder?" At a media roundtable I attended as a reporter for CQ, U.S. spy chief Dennis Blair said this: "We know a heck of a lot more about Iraq on a granular level than we know about Afghanistan." He was answering a question from a reporter who relayed a tale -- from not so long ago -- where military forces in Afghanistan relied on maps featuring non-existent villages. Blair said the problem went beyond maps to basic understandings of local power structures. The United States has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq, so the number of years spent muddling is secondary. Afghanistan IS harder, or the considerable gap between American resources spent on Iraq and Afghanistan means the United States has come to figure out Iraq in a way that it hasn't Afghanistan. Or it's both. Whatever the case, as of now, Afghanistan is harder than Iraq. Recent news reports about a Rand study on counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan focused primarily on Afghanistan. The intelligence failures there, according to the Guardian, "border on the absurd." Blair said the intelligence community may have a fair assessment of the overall situation in Afghanistan, but when it comes to tactical intelligence used to support operations, the spy agencies have a long way to go. And since according to the new strategy, more troops will be sent, that almost assuredly means more operations. That makes the improvement of tactical intelligence in Afghanistan vital to success there. And that won't be easy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Early returns are that Obama's plan to reach out to nations hostile to America isn't going to be easy. Venezuela's Chavez calls Obama "ignoramus" Iran’s Supreme Leader Rebuffs Obama Message |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| There's no doubt that President Barack Obama's video message to the Iranian government and leadership was a bold move. It's won both considerable praise and heated denouncements. But my question is this: What impact can it have if nobody saw it? The AP writes, via Think Progress: "It wasn’t clear how many Iranians were able to see the video, which was not aired on state television in Iran on Friday. It was likely shown on Farsi-language TV stations beamed in from outside of the country, but many Iranians don’t watch television in the first days of long Nowruz holiday that is normally filled with family gatherings or vacations away from home." And seeing it on YouTube isn't a really viable option, either, since the Iranian government blocks the website. About the only place an Iranian citizen could go to watch it is the White House website. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Analysing the continuing rift between Europe and the U.S. how best to overcome the financial crisis, Robert Kuttner argues that both are right. President Barack Obama, writes Kuttner, is correct to demand that European countries, especially the continent's biggest economy Germany, do more to stimulate spending. But the Europeans are equally right to demand that international regulation of the financial system is given high priority. While I generally agree with his analysis, he and many other critics of Europe's alleged meager stimulus policy, miss an important point. Compared to the U.S. many European countries have a much tighter social security and welfare net. In times of crises, this provides an important buffer against the most severe effects of the recession. In other words: The social and welfare act as a kind of automatic stimulus in many European countries. If those effects are factored in, the size of the German stimulus package for instance is basically on par with that of the U.S. An excellent analysis of this phenomenon can be found of all places in the Wall Street Journal. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| It's another sign that the Eastern European missile defense shield planned by President George W. Bush is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon. The Czech government withdrew a scheduled ratification vote on the treaty from the lower house of parliament. While Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek pointed out that the pull back didn't mean the end of the ratification process, he added that he would reconsider it after talks with U.S. President Barack Obama at the upcoming NATO summit in France and Germany. Given the Obama administration's sceptical stance toward missile defense it seems unlikely that Obama will press Topolanek hard on that issue. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Two weeks ago, I asked what options the U.S. had for dealing with Iran. Since, Michael has addressed one, and now my CQ colleague Adam Graham-Silverman has addressed some others. The AGS piece is focused primarily on talks -- in contrast with the tea leaf reading from some that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for abandoning engagement -- but it delves into other options, too, paraphrasing an expert pertinent to all of this, Dennis Ross: "Tighten the noose of sanctions, engage without conditions, or pursue a hybrid option that combines negotiation and pressure." The rest of AGS' exploration is worth reading as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| In a fascinating article, Ryan Grim examines how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in recent months has literally pumped billions of dollars into central banks around the world. As Grim points out - and I concur -, this aspect of the global financial crisis hasn't been reported by mainstream media previously. In essence, writes Grim, the Fed has been acting as the world's central bank since last year in a move that is a clear step into territory usually occupied by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to the article, 314 billion dollars are currently loaned to international central banks by the Federal Reserve, down from almost 600 billion in December. The central banks use the money to rescue financial institutions in their own countries. The transactions, writes Grim, are conducted as swaps, whereby the Fed receives the equal amount of its loan in foreign currency. As a consequence of this money injection program, the Fed and other global central banks are very tighly linked to each other. If everything goes well and the central banks can repay their loans, this is not a problem. Difficulties for both sides could arise, if central banks can't repay their loans and thus internationalize their problem. European countries participating in this program, according to Grim are, Denmark, Britain, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. To read the article in the Huffington Post click here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Two analyses on Sunday about the Obama foreign policy: Fareed Zakaria praises Obama's foreign policy activity thus far, noting changes of direction on Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The Guardian's Jonathan Freeland notes many of the same things, plus Obama activity on Cuba, Israel and others. Both pieces leave out the missteps of the administration on foreign policy, like the failed appointment of Charles Freeman to the National Intelligence Council or the gaffe with Hillary Clinton and the Russia "reset button." But I think at least one part of their thrust is unquestionably true: It's been a busy early period on foreign policy for an administration that might be expected to focus almost all of its energy on the economy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||