Foreign Policy

Speaking about the recent coup in Honduras, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said President Manuel Zelaya clearly "was in violation of his country's constitution." McCain made his comments on Twitter this afternoon:

Violence and unrest in Honduras & China - we need to continue to stand up for human rights and democracy around the world!

I regret the military takeover in Honduras, but it's clear President Zelaya was in violation of his country's constitution.

McCain's statement runs in direct conflict with the Obama administration's position on the coup. Last week, the president said that the coup was "not legal" and that Zelaya is still the president of the Latin American nation.

Members of Congress have generally been mum on the situation, but some tensions are beginning to show, especially amongst Republicans. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said that Zelaya "trampled on the Honduran constitution" and called the Honduran president's effort to extend his term a "blatant power grab."

Zelaya proposed a constitutional referendum that would allow him to seek reelection, superceding term limits layed out in the country's constitution. Members of the Honduran military arrested him and forced him into exile on June 29.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the ousted president today.

Cross posted to the Twitter Room

The State Department announced today that Ambassador Patrick Duddy will return to Venezuela after President Hugo Chavez expelled U.S. diplomatic staff last fall. DipNote, the State Department's official Twitter, tweeted:

Briefing Notes: Amb Patrick Duddy returned to Caracas to advance more open, direct, productive communications between the U.S., Venezuela.

Last Thursday, the State Department announced that it would send Duddy to Caracas.

Duddy's return may be a hot-button issues amongst liberals and conservatives. Last September Chavez threw out U.S. diplomatic staff accusing the U.S. of disrespecting Latin America. In return then-President Bush expelled the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington.

But when President Obama attended the Summit of the Americas in April, Chavez made overtures to him that raised some eyebrows. Chavez handed Obama a copy of his book, which criticizes American intervention in Latin America, and shook his hand.

Republicans highlighted the exchange as an example of Obama's weakness in foreign policy, while Democrats downplayed it. Will this action garner as much press coverage as 'the handshake' did? Or will its coincidence with the Fourth of July weekend put it out of focus?

Cross posted to Twitter Room

Greg Sargent points out an interesting Gallup poll yesterday in which Obama gets higher marks (for the most part) on foreign policy and national security than on domestic issues.



Sargent calls this a "reverse Nixon-to-China sybdrome." (The conventional wisdom is that it's easier for hawks to make "dovish" concessions. But Obama is a dove getting high marks for somewhat "dovish" positions, Sargent argues.)

Indeed, it doesn't look as though Obama's position on Guantanamo Bay and openness to talks with Iran is hurting him.

But it's important to note that Obama has shifted adopted (or just slightly modified) some of Bush's position since taking office, including the "state secrets privilege," military commissions, habeas corpus, and others. (See here for more on the similarity between Bush and Obama on terrorism issues.)

So I wouldn't conclude that Obama's high approval numbers on terror represent a victory for Bush's main critics.

Just days after Obama arrives home from overseas, he'll have to switch roles and play host for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Berlusconi will drop by the White House on June 15.

From the White House:

President Obama will welcome Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy to the White House on Monday, June 15th. The United States and Italy, a NATO ally, have strong bilateral relations and partner together around the world to promote peace, prosperity, and democratic freedoms. The President looks forward to discussing preparations for the G-8 Summit that will take place in L'Aquila, Italy in July, and consulting with the Prime Minister on a broad range of strategic issues of mutual concern.

Berlusconi is a colorful character. If there's a press availability, it should make for some interesting TV.

President Obama denied today that he had snubbed Nicolas Sarkozy by turning down an invitation to have dinner with the French president and his wife.

At a joint press conference with Sarkozy today, Obama said he simply didn't have time for a long, diplomatic dinner.

"What it means is that I have a very tough schedule," Obama said in response to a question. "I would love nothing more than to have a leisurely week in Paris, stroll down the Seine, take my wife out to a nice meal, have a picnic in Luxembourg Gardens. Those days are over, for the moment."

Obama said the U.S-French relationship was strong enough to weather trivial P.R. snafus, and joked that he looks forward to spending more time in France once he's out of office.

"At some point, I will be the ex-President, and then you will find me in France, I'm sure, quite a bit, having fun," Obama quipped.

Sarkozy echoed Obama, saying he wasn't miffed that Obama turned town his invitation.

"Do you think our prime concern is what glossy magazine we'll be pictured in, or what restaurant we're going to go and spend an evening in, or whether we spend an extra night here or not?" Sarkozy asked.

"Do you think people are just waiting to see us hand-in-hand sitting here looking into one another's eyes? Of course not," he added.

Americans remain very pessimistic about the prospects of peace in the Middle East, a new Gallup poll finds.

Just 32% of respondents believe there will ever be peace between Israel and Arab nations, the second lowest response since Gallup started asking the question in 1994.


At the same time, a majority of respondents favor a Palestinian state--51% support it, 29% oppose it. A "two-state solution" is a cornerstone of the administrations Middle East policy, though many in Israel, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remain skeptical.



The poll also found that Americans have a much better opinion of Egypt, where Obama spoke today, than other nations in the region. 59% of Americans have a favorable view of Egypt, comparable to Israel's 63% approval rating. No other Arab country receives more than about 30% support.



Overall, 55% of respondents approve of the way Obama is handling "the situation in the Middle East."

The conservative blogosphere seems pretty mixed in its reaction to Obama's Cairo speech. Of course, many bloggers have blasted the speech as naive and apologetic. But much more so than usual, a number of conservatives are speaking up in Obama's defense.

Dan Spencer at Red State loved it:

Credit where credit is due. Obama, as I suggested he do a year ago, finally confronted his, and our Muslim issue.

The first 15 minutes of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world was what I wanted to hear from candidate Obama a year ago. Had he given that portion of his speech during the presidential campaign much of the irrational fear of Obama as some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate would have been relieved.

I found it Ironic that when Obama turned to democracy, religious freedom and women's rights, the speech was reminiscent of the remarkable series of speeches President Bush gave about the advance of freedom.

This was one of President Obama's more important speeches and he rose to the occasion and delivered a fine speech. There are numerous things about Obama's speech to the Muslim world I could criticize, but I will save that for another article.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air called the speech "surprisingly good":

Did it work? Schneider says it only received light applause at the end, so perhaps Obama told a few too many hard truths for Egyptian tastes--which is why we questioned that decision. On the whole, though, Obama defended American positions on Israel and Afghanistan with more strength than he does here at home.

Of course, the big question will be whether this does anything at all for our standing in the Muslim world. Frankly, I doubt it; this may wind up eroding Obama's standing instead. Still, a much better effort than I'd feared.

Max Boot at Commentary:

Having just read Obama's Cairo speech, my reaction is: Not bad. It could have been better. But it also could have been a lot worse.

For dissenting views, see Erick Erickson, Ira Stoll, and Rachel Abrams, among others. For the most part, the speech is getting much better reviews by conservatives than Obama's previous overseas ventures.

Obama's speech was "naive" and engaged in "moral relativism," says Liz Cheney.

Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Cheney said Obama should have taken a harder line with Iran.

"I was troubled by the sort of extent to which i heard moral relativism," she said. "I heard the president talk about Iran as though we've done some bad things to Iran and they've done some bad things to us, but now we just need to really get together here to go forward."

Instead, Cheney says the President should have "acknowledg[ed] the fact that Iran is the world's largest terrorist sponsoring state, that they really do have these hegemonic ambitions for the region."

She added: "The notion that we just simply have mutual interests here strikes me as a little bit naive."

Video below, followed by the section of Obama's speech dealing with Iran:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Israeli settlement leaders blasted President Obama's Cairo speech today, calling out "Hussein Obama" for repeating "Arab lies."

In a strongly worded statement, the Yesha Council, an organization representing municipal settlement councils in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, called on Netanyahu to repudiate Obama, who in the past has called for a halt to settlement building as a key step in the peace process.

From Haaretz:

"Today, the State of Israel is paying the price of its leaders' defeatism," Yesha Council said in a statement. "Hussein Obama gave priority to Arab lies, which have always been told with determination and daring, at the expense of the Jewish truth, which has been said in a weak and unconfident voice."

The council called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to emulate former prime ministers Begin and Shamir and "stand up like a proud Jew and reject Obama's fabricated history." Habayit Hayehudi chairman Daniel Hershkowitz said that Obama ignored the fact that the Palestinians have yet to renounce terror.

Kim Jong Il has selected his 26 year-old son to succeed him as leader of North Korea, the Associated Press reports.

Kim Jong Un is the youngest of Kim Jong Il's three sons. As the AP reports, the son is already being called "Commander Kim" in the communist country.

The announcement comes after several recent provocations from North Korea with regard to its nuclear missile program. In April, North Korea tested a long-range missile. Then last week North Korea fired off three short-range missiles and conducted an under ground nuclear test. And on top of that, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that North Korea was prepping another long-range missile.

All of these actions have been seen as attempts to drum up support for Kim Jong-Il's successor.

For a closer look at Kim Jong Un, check out this Time Magazine profile that ran on Monday.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it