• Poll: Obama more popular abroad than at home

    Pew Research Project

    From NBC's Ellie Hall
    While President Obama’s approval rating has slipped in the United States after the partisan fight over health care and during a struggling economy, a survey released today by the Pew Research Center indicates that Obama is more popular abroad than he is at home.

    It also suggests that his presidency has increased the United States' favorability in other countries, particularly in Europe, since the Bush years.

    The Pew Global Attitudes poll found that a majority of individuals in 16 of the 21 countries surveyed feel confident in Obama as an international leader. Ten of these countries, in fact, express a higher confidence in the president than America does (at 65%). Obama’s popularity remains high in Europe, especially in Germany (where he enjoys a 90% confidence rating), France (87%), and Great Britain (84%).

    That said, confidence in Obama fell in Asian countries. Still, more than seven in 10 in Japan (76%), South Korea (75%), and India (73%) approve of the president and his actions. Even in China, a slim majority of the population (52%) has confidence in the American president. Global support for Obama’s foreign policies is not as widespread as it was when he first took office in 2009, but still remains favorable in most countries.

    Also in the poll, 17 out of the 21 countries surveyed reported a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the United States, including significant popularity increases over the past year in Russia (up 13%) and China (up 11%). The rehabilitation of the American image after the steep decline in popularity during the Bush presidency is especially visible in Western European nations, where American favorability ratings remained positive and relatively stable, with little change from last year’s numbers.

    “We are documenting a revival of the global image in many parts of the world ... reflecting confidence in Barack Obama. Opinions about the U.S. are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office,” says Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Project, noting the overall revival of America’s global image in the past year.

    Obama’s popularity abroad is directly responsible for the improved view of America internationally, Kohut added. “Analysis of the survey ... shows that this new attitude toward the United States is being driven by personal views of Obama and confidence in him. I don’t only mean style but confidence in him rather than opinions about his policies or expectations about specific things he is going to do.”

    Yet despite Obama’s repeated rhetorical efforts to promote approval of the United States in the Muslim world -- from his call to “seek a new way forward” in his inaugural address, to his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo last year -- Obama’s (and America’s) biggest decline in popularity over the past year occurred in predominately in Muslim countries. A majority of the population in five out of the six Muslim nations surveyed lack confidence in the president. The exception is Indonesia, where the president lived as a child. But even there Obama’s popularity has slipped 4% in the past year.

    It remains to be seen whether this overall improvement in the American global image will encourage other nations to support the United States in the implementation of American foreign policy. “World opinion likes the idea of Obama more than the reality of Obama,” said former GOP Sen. John Danforth, a co-chair of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, at a breakfast with reporters this morning. “The numbers fall off very dramatically the more concrete the issue…the harder the issue, the more concrete the problem, the more concrete the actions, the less support they receive.”

    Danforth, a former ambassador to the United Nations, debated the effect of the president’s popularity on America’s international relations with his fellow co-chair, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

    “It is going to be very important for [Obama] to translate his personal popularity into the actions that are supportive of a different agenda,” Albright said.

  • Obama agenda: The Iran sanctions

    AP

    Per the New York Times, “The United Nations Security Council leveled its fourth round of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program on Wednesday, but the measures did little to overcome widespread doubts that they — or even the additional steps pledged by American and European officials — would accomplish the Council’s longstanding goal: halting Iran’s production of nuclear fuel.”

    More: “The new resolution, hailed by President Obama as delivering ‘the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government,’ took months to negotiate and major concessions by American officials, but still failed to carry the symbolic weight of a unanimous decision. Twelve of the 15 nations on the Council voted for the measure, while Turkey and Brazil voted against it and Lebanon abstained.”

    The AP: “President Barack Obama is focusing on the Gulf oil spill for a good part of his day… After those meetings, the president will discuss energy reform with business leaders and energy experts.”

    The New York Daily News: "President Obama pledged $400 million on Wednesday to help Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas provide fresh water and shelter to people in the increasingly 'unsustainable' Gaza Strip."

  • Obama: Iran sanctions send clear message

    AP

    Obama discusses Iran sanctions

    From NBC's Athena Jones
    Calling the latest round of sanctions the toughest and most comprehensive Iran has ever faced, President Obama said they sent "an unmistakable message" about the international community's commitment to stop nuclear proliferation.

    The United Nations Security Council today voted 12 to 2 in favor of a tighter regime of sanctions on Iran -- meant to put pressure on the country to "comply with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program," which the U.S. believes is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

    Turkey and Brazil voted against Resolution 1929, which established the new sanctions, and Lebanon abstained from the vote.

    "We recognize Iran's rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. And time and again, the Iranian government has failed to meet those responsibilities," Obama said, acknowledging the country's right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    The president said the nuclear enrichment facility in Qom that the Iranian government had sought to conceal raised serious questions about the nature of the country's program. He also said Iran had failed to comply fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency's requirements and had violated its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment, enriching up to 20 percent.

    "Iran is the only NPT signatory in the world -- the only one -- that cannot convince the IAEA that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes."

    The sanctions are designed to "increase the cost to Iran's leaders of their current irresponsible policies," according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Office of Press and Public Diplomacy. They are not aimed at the Iranian people, Obama and other US officials stressed.

    The sanctions include a ban on Iranian investment in sensitive nuclear activities abroad (like uranium mining, enrichment, and reprocessing); a ban on sales of certain conventional arms to Iran or spare parts for those weapons; and a prohibition of any Iranian activity related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Countries are also required to prevent transferring any related technology or technical assistance to Iran and would prohibit new banking relationships with Iran when there is a suspected link to proliferation.

    The new regime -- which builds on three previous rounds of UN sanctions on the country -- imposes a new cargo inspection framework to prevent smuggling of contraband and requires countries to seize and dispose of any contraband found.

    The Resolution establishes a U.N. "Panel of Experts" to monitor the implementation of the sanctions.

    After the vote, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who has described the sanctions as tough and precise, spelled out Iran's alleged violations of the nonproliferation treaty. Officials from the United Kingdom and China stressed that the door for dialogue was always open -- something the president also emphasized.

    "We know that the Iranian government will not change its behavior overnight, but today's vote demonstrates the growing costs that will come with Iranian intransigence," Obama said. "These sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy; Iran continues to have the opportunity to take a different and better path."

  • Obama agenda: Obama meets with Abbas

    AP

    President Barack Obama (center) meets Sept. 22, 2009 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (left) and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (right).

    The AP: "With tensions newly heightened in the Middle East, President Barack Obama and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas were set to discuss Israel's blockade of Gaza and the humanitarian and economic hardship facing the people there.”

    "The White House job offers that led to charges the administration is practicing Chicago-style politics are nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to Washington, according to presidential scholars," The Hill writes. "Offering someone a position to get him out of the way goes back at least as far as the 1824 presidential election of John Quincy Adams. ... Adams allegedly offered Speaker Henry Clay a job as secretary of state to get him to drop his bid for the presidency. ... More recently, rumors circulated that President Ronald Reagan offered an ambassadorship or other job to GOP Sen. S.I. Hayakawa if he dropped out of a 1982 Senate California primary. Hayakawa told the Associated Press at the time: 'I do not want to be ambassador and I do not want an administration post.'"

  • Blog Buzz: Dissecting Gaza

    From NBC's Ali Weinberg
    A battle between Israelis and pro-Palestinian activists aboard a flotilla of humanitarian aid ships headed to Gaza that left at least nine dead is used by both the liberal and conservative blogosphere to make their respective political points regarding foreign policy.

    And just as the oil seeping from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico shows no sign of subsiding, neither does criticism of the way the oil spill is being handled, both by BP and the Obama administration.

    “If there's a better example of how not to address a flotilla of charity ships, I doubt it,” AMERICAblog’s Chris in Paris wrote. “As an avid supporter of Israel, this event is extremely upsetting. The state of Israel is going down a very dangerous path which will not do anyone, any good.”

    ThinkProgress’ Ben Armbruster wrote, “In a damage control effort, Israeli officials and their right-wing American supporters are now trying to deflect blame onto the activists, saying that there was no reason for them to be trying to breach the blockade to deliver supplies because there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

    Countering the Israeli defense, Armbruster cited a U.N. fact-finding mission describing the Israeli blockade of Gaza as “collective punishment.” More: “A U.N. official said last week that the formal economy in Gaza has ‘collapsed,’ and 60 percent of households there were short on food. The Guardian notes that according to UN statistics, ‘around 70% of Gazans live on less than $1 a day, 75% rely on food aid and 60% have no daily access to water.’”

    On the question of whether the Israeli army’s response to the flotilla’s attempt to enter the blockaded Gaza Strip was proportional, the conservative blogger Michael Rubin wrote at NRO: “When attacked, why should not a stronger nation or its representatives try to both protects its own personnel at all costs and, in the wider scheme of things, defeat its adversaries?” He continues: “Ultimately, it may be time to recognize that, in the face of growing threats to Western liberalism, strength and disproportionality matter more to security and the protection of democracy than the approval of the chattering class of Europe or the U.N. secretary general, a man whose conciliatory policies as foreign minister of South Korea proved to be a strategic disaster.”

    Responding today about reports of additional plumes of oil beneath the surface of the sea, AMERICAblog’s Chris in Paris condemned both the oil company and the White House: “This brings us back to the same old problem of Obama failing to take charge of this. Let BP use their expert engineering (however pathetic it may be or sound) to do the deep water drilling to add the relief wells but beyond that, shut them down now.”

    More: “BP should not be involved in the process of cleanup other than paying the bill. They shouldn't be telling scientists about the environment when the only thing BP knows is how to kill the environment. They shouldn't be confiscating tainted clothing that could be used in legal action against BP. How thick is this team at the White House that they can't get this into their heads? For an arrogant bunch, they sure look like 98 pound weaklings who get sand kicked in their face five times a day for weeks on end.”

    Balloon Juice’s John Cole shrugged his cyber-shoulders at BP’s latest attempt to plug the hole, the Lower Marine Riser Package: “I’m not going to even bother crossing my fingers,” he writes.

    And Daily Kos wrote that BP’s nickname for the attempt, “cut and cap,” is a misnomer: “The only problem with BP's ‘cut and cap’ operation is that it won't cap anything,” wrote Jed Lewinson. “At best, it will allow BP to salvage some of the oil (hopefully a substantial amount), but it won't stop the leak, and it won't keep oil from escaping. And whenever there's a serious storm, the drill site will need to be abandoned, and the oil will flow without restriction, just as has been for the past six weeks, except the flow rate will be around 20% greater because the salvage operation requires BP to make a clean cut on its riser piping, giving BP's containment dome easier access to the leaking oil at the expense of increasing the flowrate. Let's hope we don't have to endure the worst case scenario, an unabated flow of oil and gas through August.”

    HotAir’s Ed Morrissey contrasts the White House’s assurance that BP operates at its with recent announcements from Obama which Morrissey sees as attempts to distance the administration from the oil company’s operations: “Unfortunately for the White House, Barack Obama has yoked himself to BP by insisting that the federal government has been in charge since Day 1 and continues to dictate all of BP’s actions in response to the spill. Obama deliberately took ownership of the response in Thursday’s press conference. It’s a little late now to start putting distance between BP and the federal government, especially in the present tense, when everyone now expects the federal government to run the show.”

    Red State’s Vladimir focused on the economic toll foreseen as a result of Obama’s offshore drilling moratorium, announced last week. He quoted from a Times-Picayune article today which reported, “Within a very short time, [LA Economic Development Secretary Stephen] Moret believes the state will lose 3,000 to 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. If the suspensions are maintained, it could rise to 10,000 jobs. And if the moratorium persists while oil prices rise, the state could lose 20,000 jobs over the next 12 to 18 months in the form of lost direct and indirect jobs.”

    Vladimir calls the Times-Pic story “one of the bigger ‘duh!’ headlines of the year,” adding, “maybe this is payback, Chicago-style.”