Obama's Economic & Political challenges

US President-elect Barack Obama leaves a gym on Friday in Chicago

Expressing his determination to "confront the economic crisis head on," US President-elect Barack Obama has said the first priority of his administration would be to pass a stimulus package if it could not take place before his inauguration. Obama, who was addressing his first press conference after being elected as the 44th US President, noted that the country was facing the "greatest economic challenge" of its lifetime and promised his government would act "swiftly" to address it. "We have a current financial crisis that is spilling out into rest of the economy, and we have taken some action so far. More action is undoubtedly going to be needed," Obama said adding that the further course of actions would be closely monitored by his transition team. "The one thing I can say with certainty is that we are going to see a stimulus package passed either before or after inauguration," the President-elect said. Obama, who had a meeting with a 17-member council of economic advisors earlier yesterday said it would be very important for him to provide the kinds of assistance to state and local governments to "make sure that they don't compound some of the problems that are already out there by having to initiate major layoffs or initiate tax increases." "I want to see a stimulus package sooner rather than later. If it does not get done in the lame-duck session, it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States" Obama said. "Immediately after I become president, I will confront this economic crisis head on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hard-working families and restore growth and prosperity," Obama said. As election day approached, both presidential candidates were given a CIA briefing, sketching out the shape of the world the winner would inherit. At the end of an exhausting and sometimes terrifying list of global threats, Barack Obama took a deep breath, according to someone familiar with his session, and said: “Good grief, why do I want this job?” Now the job is his, and he has until January 20 to ready himself and his staff before taking on a troubled world. Mr. Obama has, of course, been preparing for years. He has approached foreign policy in the same cool and strategic manner he handled the long campaign. By the end of the race, there were 300 foreign policy experts — divided up into groups by region and issue — brainstorming for him. That huge think-tank moved from campaigning to transition mode weeks before election day so that it would be ready to break to the surface as soon as the votes were counted. The President-elect is said to be anxious to avoid the mistakes of Bill Clinton and George Bush, who took months to get their policies and staff in place while the world changed around them. Some reports from the Obama camp suggest a national security team could be named by the end of the week.
So what will be in the new President’s in-tray?
Iraq and Afghanistan: The broad foreign policy goals of the new White House have been repeatedly signalled over the course of the long campaign. U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq in the next 16 months while the American force in Afghanistan will be substantially reinforced, reversing what is widely seen as one of the fundamental strategic blunders of the Bush era. But a surge in Afghanistan would itself be controversial among some of those who helped Mr. Obama win. The U.S. military effort is to be focussed on al-Qaeda and its allies. Mr. Obama has vowed that if necessary, American forces would, as under the Bush administration, cross the Pakistan border in pursuit of al-Qaeda targets.
The Middle East: There will be a much higher level of U.S. engagement in the Middle East, reversing the arms-length ambivalence that characterised much of the Bush administration and returning to the micro-management attempted by Mr. Clinton, whose Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, is one of Mr. Obama’s closest advisers. He accompanied the candidate to the Middle East over the summer and is tipped for high office in the new administration, signalling the priority given to the region. Mr. Obama has made it clear his administration would be willing to talk directly with Syria and Iran. His advisers see an opportunity to draw Damascus away from Iran’s orbit with the promise of international acceptance, investment and the land-for-peace deal that Mr. Clinton came close to brokering, exchanging the Golan Heights for a guarantee of Israeli security.
‘An opportunity’ A European diplomat involved in Middle East talks said: “There is a lot happening on this issue in Washington [in the Obama camp] ... there is a sense of opportunity now but also the sense the opportunity will not last very long.”Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Mualem came to London late last month with a message intended for Washington: Damascus is open for business and would ultimately prefer alignment with America to a future perpetually joined at the hip with the Shia clerics in Iran.As for Iran’s theocracy, Mr. Obama has said his administration would be ready for direct talks with Tehran, though probably not at summit level while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains in office. There would be no weakening of the West’s position of refusing to countenance the enrichment of uranium in Iran, but there could be talk about broader strategic issues with the aim of a “grand bargain” in the region. The first step could be the opening of a U.S.-staffed interests section in Tehran, if the Bush administration does not move first in its last weeks.
Multilateralism: Underpinning these initiatives is a global philosophy sketched out by Mr. Obama’s team and a group of Democratic foreign policy specialists who called themselves the Phoenix Initiative — supposedly taking wing after two Democratic defeats. When the group published its report last year, the preface was written by Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser.
The core idea essentially turns the Bush doctrine on its head. It argues that the main problems facing America in the 21st century — terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change and dependence on fossil fuels — cannot by addressed by one country acting alone or even in concert with traditional allies. The aim would be to restore America’s global leadership in a world that is no longer unipolar. It would be achieved not primarily through military force but through soft power, exemplary action and networking among governments, inside and outside formal international organisations, to address specific problems.
Nuclear and climate change: An Obama White House would seek to take the initiative on the two existential issues facing the planet: nuclear proliferation and climate change. It would seek to negotiate deep cuts in the U.S. and Russian arsenals, to restore the integrity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty before it comes up for review in 2010 and before a nuclear arms race breaks out in the Middle East. To confront global warming, Mr. Obama has said he is ready to adopt a European-style cap-and-trade system of mandatory limits on emissions for major polluters. That would include China and India. Taken together, the policies represent a sharp break with the Bush era to suit a world in which American hegemony has arguably run its course, a break personified by the President himself. Being America’s first African-American President, with the middle name Hussein, gives him a transformational image. That will open a lot of doors but raises expectations to impossible levels.
The hurdles: The big question now is how many of Mr. Obama’s carefully laid plans will survive the realities of office, when crises come thick and fast. For his foreign policy team, January 20 will seem like walking out of a serene library into a meteor shower
Leaving Iraq Getting out of Iraq will be all the more imperative because a financially weakened America can no longer afford to stay, but it will be far from easy. Robert Kaplan, an author and strategic analyst at the Centre for a New American Security in Washington, warns that the insurgents and the Iranian government will seek to ensure a U.S. withdrawal. “I fear a measurable uptick in violence in Iraq Obama wins on Tuesday,” Mr. Kaplan wrote last week, arguing that U.S. forces should ease their way out of Iraq rather than “rush for the exits.” In the Middle East, progress could be torpedoed before it begins if the moderate Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, fails to negotiate an extension to his term with Hamas, and if the hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu emerges as Israel’s new Prime Minister. As for the Syrian track, Mr. Mualem’s overtures in London may well not have the backing of the formidable security apparatus. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama may have to postpone direct talks with Tehran for fear of boosting Mr. Ahmadinejad before Iran’s presidential elections in June. Even Mr. Obama’s ambitious plans for taking the lead on climate change before the planned Copenhagen summit at the end of this year could be blocked at home at a time of recession and belt-tightening. The constant buffeting of unforeseen events means that campaigns, however successful, are poor indicators of how Presidents will govern. Mr. Obama steps on to the international stage holding the promise of transformation and a global realignment. America’s predicament has worsened exponentially since he began his campaign, and has the potential to deteriorate yet further. Hopes are high, but so are the dangers.