One of the most important policy initiatives the President mentioned was Reform Trade Adjustment Assistance, which he mentioned right after asking Congress to pass the Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The FTA's are important, particularly as the US tries to stem the tide against Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution, which has spread from Venezuela to Bolivia, Ecuador and to a lesser extent Nicaragua. To be fair, there are many issues within these countries that have aided Chavismo in its pursuit, but Colombia, and Mexico have served to a large extent as bulwarks against Chavez' influence. Passing the FTA with Colombia rewards a strong ally, and one who has also taken on extremely difficult issues within his own country; issues that have cost him politically, both in stature, but also in political allies who have been forced to resign from his government for their ties to right-wing military groups accused of egregious human rights violations. These issues, however, would be better explored in a post solely dedicated to Colombia.
With regard to South Korea, the FTA is much warranted, as that country has seen much of its investment flowing to China to take advantage of the opportunities that the Chinese juggernaut presents. Opening markets, preferentially to South Korea would aid them in attracting more FDI as China, among others try to take advantage of the opportunities the FTA provides for South Korean exporters. It would also likely make South Korea a bit more cooperative on the issue of North Korea's nuclear disarmament, which is likely to be a very important issue as a new president takes office come next January.
Reform Trade Adjustment Assistance would make the passage of these FTAs easier, as it would address at least one aspect of concern for members of Congress who are less than enthusiastic about passing another FTA, for fear of the job losses the US is likely to incur as a result. The program, if funded, can help Americans so affected by providing with among other things, rapid response assistance, reemployment services, job search allowances, relocation allowances, training and income support. I suspect that even this may not be enough to get these FTAs passed through Congress, as there is much anti-Free Trade sentiment there nowadays, mostly due to out current economic woes.
Perhaps the most important policy initiative put forth by the President in this State of the Union, one Tom Barnett has repeatedly and forcefully argued for, is that of purchasing food aid, not from American farmers, but rather from local farmers in the countries to which the aid is going. In this way, we not only provide famine stricken areas with food aid, but also jump start their local economies thereby reconnecting them, ever so slightly to the global market. It was unclear from the president's statement, whether the food aid would be purchased from farmers in the specific country we are trying to help, or from the third world in general. The distinction is important as purchasing food aid from emerging agricultural power houses would aid these in achieving first world status. This policy proposal will now doubt be fought tooth and nail by our agricultural lobby, and powerful congressmen such as Tom Lantos, who have opposed such initiatives in the past. However, if there's a proposal specifically designed to shrink the Gap, and truly focus our development aid (and humanitarian aid) where it is most needed, this is it. The President being a lame duck at this point is unlikely to gain much traction on this issue, but it is at least noteworthy that he mentioned it.
The President also seemed to bring to the fore a new "Axis of Despotism(?)," by naming Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Burma, at least three if which don't get much time in the American press, as countries where the US supports freedom. However, it is unlikely that any new initiatives will pass during the next 11 months that would seek to implement any policy with regard to these states. That may be a good thing, since given the changing political dynamic within Cuba, at least, the worst thing we could do is give the new leadership an excuse to close themselves further, or to rally nationalist sentiment against the US. The least we intervene in Cuba, the more they have to focus on their internal problems, as Iran has demonstrated to some extent following the lowering of tensions between the US and Iran. Of course, the President, seemingly failing to heed the message, directed some of his comments to Iran, something that can only help Ahmedinejad in rallying conservatives and nationalists to his side once again; people who have seemingly abandoned him as of late, due to his incompetence and mismanagement of the Iranian economy (among them, Ayatollah Khamenei). As others will likely note, asking Iran to give up its Ace before sitting at the negotiating table, will not happen. It's nuclear program is leverage, without which it knows it can't get what it wants. This however, is also a subject best tackled in its own post as it is too complicated to flesh out in a paragraph.
One of the few points where I disagreed with the President was on this overtly broad statement:
In the past seven years, we've also seen the images that have sobered us. We've watched throngs of mourners in Lebanon and Pakistan carrying the caskets of beloved leaders taken by the assassins' hands.
We've seen wedding guests in blood-soaked finery staggering from a hotel in Jordan, Afghans and Iraqis blown up in mosques and markets, and trains in London and Madrid ripped apart by bombs
We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear.
....that is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to the people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories.
I don't much disagee that we are indeed fighting terrorists in some of these places, my problem, rather is from his using the "terrorists" to describe them all, lumping separate conflicts under one banner while also seeming to tie them to al Qaeda. In Lebanon, the major is not against al Qaeda, but rather against Iran and Syria's attempt to increase their influence in the country and aid their quasi-proxy, Hezbollah. That conflict is intimately tied to Iran's rise and the reshaping geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, in what Vali Nasr has termed the Shia Revival. Being Shiites, or secularists in the case of Syria, these countries see al Qaeda as enemies, not allies. To boot, Iran helped us during the Afghan campaign because al Qaeda, being a Sunni fundamentalist entity and ideology sees Shiites as worst than even the infidel West.
Iraq, for the most part, has become part of that struggle, with Sunnis seeking a better contract than the one they were presented with following the toppling of Saddam Hussein. It is also a conflict between and among Shiites, who have differing visions of the future of Iraq. It also involves the Kurds and their own dreams for self-actualization, and the security interests of Turkey, Iran and Syria, all of which have a substantial minority Kurdish population. Al Qaeda in Iraq, is but a minor player, powerful to be sure, but surrounded by enemies on all sides, including now, the Sunnis who have chosen to side with the US against their one time ally.
The Palestinian territories have more to do with Israels right to security and Palestinian's valid claims for nationhood. Most of the violence there centers on intra-Palestinian issues that have little, if nothing, to do with our GWOT against al Qaeda.
In fact, of all these, only Afghanistan and Pakistan have major problems with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and hence, the terrorists who attacked on us on September 11, 2001. Even here, however, there are deeper issues centered on Pakistan's need for a friendlier, neutral government in Afghanistan so as to avoid the prospect of a two front war, if it were to start one with India. So long as we don't address some of Pakistan's security needs in Afghanistan, it is unlikely that they will do much to stamp out the Taliban, or al Qaeda, as they would see these (particularly the Taliban) as a means of retaining influence in Afghanistan. In lumping all of these different conflicts together under the moniker of terrorism, the President makes it seem as if they are all related to the main fight against al Qaeda. They are important, to be sure, but thinking of them solely in terms of al Qaeda or the GWOT obscures far too much nuance and information we need to ensure that we craft strategies that address the problems we face, and not those we imagine. Most of these topics deserve their own posts, and not merely one or two paragraphs in a large post. However, I just wanted to highlight these for readers, as those I thought were the most important aspects in the President's State of the Union speech.
