No free ride for Europe, says top Barack Obama aide

Source: Telegraph

No free ride for Europe, says top Barack Obama aide
By Toby Harnden in Washington

Last Updated: 9:35PM BST 18/07/2008

Europe will be challenged by a President Barack Obama to contribute more to global security and will no longer have the "easy out" of pandering to anti-Bush sentiment, according to a top adviser to the Democratic candidate.


Former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice listens to Barack Obama answer a question at a foreign policy forum in Des Moines, Iowa

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on the eve of Mr Obama's week-long trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, Susan Rice emphasised that the election of Mr Obama would mark a decision by Americans to "turn the page" on President George W Bush.

-snip-
"It would signal a return to the more pragmatic and bi-partisan traditions of American foreign policy, which have been lost to ideology in the Bush years," she said. "He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.
"There is some truth to the notion that some of the animus at the popular level towards the Bush administration may have made it easier for some of our European partners to avoid taking steps that we may want them to take and that perhaps they ought to take," she said.
"That has, in some respects, perhaps on some issues, given them an easy out. Barack Obama will lead from a position of strength and seek progress, and he will want to work with Europe in very strong partnership.

"It means we in the United States will have to do our part; but Europe will have to do its part too. There can be no free riders if this is going to be an effective partnership."
The Obama campaign has highlighted Afghanistan as a prime example, arguing that Europe should send more troops there and lift restrictions on how they can be used.




Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2307785/No-free-ride-for-Europe%2C-says-top-Barack-Obama-aide.html

---

It looks like Europe may get a little of the Obama tough love.

We had everyone on our side, willing to help in any way possible. Then we forgot about afghanistan and got bogged down in Iraq. In the meantime everyone saw what a crackpot W was.

doesn't mean he gets away with all the crimes he's committed.

community by telling them they have been freeloading. Not doing their fair share? How do these people get into these positions of influence.

when it comes to defense. I wouldn't use that stark of a phrase, but that is basically the situation.

must have gotten off totally free...

Rice out to STFU.

This is *anything* but diplomatic. What the hell is she, a DLC tool?

is simply that Europe has benefited hugely from the US presence. Without Americans providing external security from the Soviet bloc Europe would never have been able to afford its luxurious social welfare plans that they have today.

and the like was just...soooo... easy.

My point is this-- Rice comes off as a stereotype of the myopic arrogant American who cannot fathom the experience of others.

BTW bringing up the welfare programs.... yupo 40% tax on one's wages have nothing whatsoever to do with that....

Attacks on social welfare... what's that sound like?

Rice is a bit too DLC for me at this point. She ought to STFU and take a course in humility.

It's one thing when Obama has to explain or clarify something he says, it's another when an aide claims to speak on his behalf. I don't care what these aides may say, I'd rather hear it straight from Obama's mouth. I would hope something was learned from the McCain/Gramm episode.

curtain.

Specifically this part:

"It means we in the United States will have to do our part; but Europe will have to do its part too. There can be no free riders if this is going to be an effective partnership." The Obama campaign has highlighted Afghanistan as a prime example, arguing that Europe should send more troops there and lift restrictions on how they can be used.

So the US invades Afghanisatn (after using it as the site of a proxy war with the USSR and then abandoning it to the Taliban) and manages to convince some other nations to come along for the ride. Then it's not going so well so the US wants more troops from these countries to use as it sees fit. And if they don't agree, they are getting a 'free ride'. Gee, I was really hoping for better from Oabama, so hopefully this 'top aide' is not accurately reflecting his views

This from a country with their currency attached to an anchor.

I'm sure that the Muslims in both countries will greet the Israelis as liberators! :applause:

Why aren't you Sec of Defense already? Who is holding you back?

I suppose it would be better for Obama to rein in the dogs for this is a very ignorant statement. Wasn't it the Europeans who said the U.S. shouldn't go into Iraq? I was living in Munich at the time of the 39th Munich Security Conference as Rumsfeld was peddling his filthy wares and Joschka Fischer, the former German Foreign Minister, put him on the spot. Fischer didn't even wait for the interpreter and gave Rumsfeld some serious, unnuanced straight talk. It was reminiscent of General Chang telling Kirk not to wait for the translation, whereby this time Fischer was Kirk, and I savored Rumsfeld's expression. Someone had the guts to make him eat his own feces and it showed. Susan Rice seems unhindered by history as this blunder in Iraq has made the security situation worse worldwide. It was the arrogance of the current administration coupled with the cowardice of Congress that got us into this mess and Europe doesn't owe us the time of day. If Obama wins (I'm still skeptical because I doubt the Neocons are going to just go away considering all the power they have accrued these past years - but that is another subject) I hope he realizes that we are going to have to show some humility on the world stage. Telling Europeans what they have to do isn't going to work and they would be totally within their rights to tell us to go and have intercourse with ourselves collectively.

x(

edit to add :

Extremely odd timing just ahead of his visit to Europe. See cal04's post for background to his popularity over here as opposed to lack of it with respect to McBlame :

Seventy percent of Italians, 67 percent of Germans, 65 percent of the French and 49 percent of Britons would vote Obama.

This compared to just 15 percent in Italy, 6 percent in Germany, 8 percent in France, and 14 percent in Britain for Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, whose support for the war in Iraq is seen as a continuation of the policy of the current White House tenant, George W. Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6515875

IF America gets its FUCKING act together, i.e.

1) closes Guantanamo

2) gets out of Iraq

3) restores the Constitution ( civil rights kinda matter and America is leading the way in the wrong direction, giving our politicians excuses to screw with liberties here, too )

4) gets moving on "environmental issues"

5) AND holds at least some of the low-lives currently "in office" accountable

These are five points I could directly come up with, can you deal with that, miss Rice?! If not, stick your tough love where it belongs... nothing wrong with pandering to sentiment against criminals.

The "bipartisan tradition" has been sort of acceptable around the world, especially when compared to the current state of matters, but it is a far cry from what the world would like America's attitude to be.

NT!

Animal Farm.

But I see her point

The EU and its member states have really been lacking in leadership, especially in the African crisis in Sudan and Zimbabwe. The time to pat themselves on the back for staying out of Iraq has passed.

Yurp hasn't done anything of note that I can think of for a long time except to oppose Bush's Murka.

Then again I'm in an international news black hole here in Murka so :shrug:

France, for instance, has been very active in West African countries the past few years. Notably Ivory Coast and Chad.

This is the 3rd century of European meddling in Africa.

It's high time Western countries stopped propping up murderous regimes, and its time for American troops to leave European (and Middle Eastern) soil. They have had a free ride for far too long, on the backs of John Q. Taxpayer.

Some European countries can take care of their interests and security without US help.

Europe will be able to get along without the presence of US troops on their soil.

And, why does "UN sanction" all of the sudden make European meddling in Africa OK?

Western countries meddle in African affairs for the benefit of strongmen and dictators, to the detriment of the average African resident.

The mission is accomplished....Europe was saved from the Red Army, let's go home.

...and, if the Koreans want to all live together - let em.

You might want to talk to the past AMERICAN Administrations (both Democratic & Republican) before you go spouting off about getting US troops off the continent.....most of Europe would be happy to see them go.....it's the Americans that continue to negotiate their continued presence in Europe.:eyes:

To go "liberate" countries that have resources our corporate masters crave?

The interventions of the 20th century were a direct result of the meddling of the 18th and 19th centuries. Borders drawn irrespective of traditional tribal territories has created an Africa rife with ethnic conflict. Thanks to two centuries of economic exploitation, there are very few African nations wealthy enough to stabilize themselves without foreign support. For example, the government of Sierra Leone was unable to contain the marauding, disorganized bands of RUF thugs, whose military prowess could be described as pure jackassery at best, without British intervention.

The situation in Africa is a double-edged sword. Europe could continue to support current leaders, who are inarguably corrupt and in many cases repressive, or they could pull out entirely and watch the whole continent descend into chaotic civil wars, which would be a thousand times worse in regard to loss of innocent life. After all, let us not forget a primary factor contributing to the success of the Rwandan Genocide was the pervasive belief among Hutu leaders that the United States and Belgium would not commit troops to defend the Tutsis. This belief proved accurate, and no less than 500,000 people were slaughtered with machetes while a castrated UN Peacekeeper contingent stood by and watched.

As far as Africa goes, the damage has been done. So much damage, in fact, that with the exception of South Africa, no African nation is capable of bettering itself on its own. John Q. Taxpayer may be picking up the bill when his army goes on a Sub-Saharran day-trip, but his quality of life is directly related to his nation's past exploitation of the African continent. Trying to stabilize these countries is the least he could do.

Pirate Smile

If US wanted to "listen" to Europe at least before they want to go to war, then they MAYBE would be given more ear time from the European nations.. This "tuff talk" from the aide of mr Obama after almost 8 year with a president who have destroyed so much of the confidence Europe once had to US is just stupid if you ask me. Before ANY american president could be that "tuff" and say that Europe have to stick to the deal, and take some responsibility for the world affairs, then they might have to behave a little nicer to their allied and friends.. And then work TOGHTETER to try to fix what is wrong in the World. If any american really believe that Europe have "freeloading" for the last 8 or 60 year, since the cold war started and so on,then they might have to study Western European history little more.. If they do, they might understand WHY Europe for the last 60 year or so, have been so carefully when it come to war. When 50 million european was killed by the WW2 and it took almost a generation or two to rebuild what was destroyed, then you "maybe" are little more carefully to get to war, then a country like US who have not have a war on their soil since 1865 when the american was fighting their self for some years..

On the other side, Europe are for the moment not that depended of US anymore. And I would guess, that is something that many in US hate more than anymore. Europe are a place where many things would happened the next decade. The EU is just the top of the iceberg. If it would not a war against the EU or within the member states or a total economical breakdown, it would be not that easy for US to play the "you have to do your share now" game anymore.. In a decade or two, maybe even the old NATO alliance would be passed over, for a new European style NATO alliance.. And NATO have been he "cornerstone" for the US policy and influence with Europe for allot 70 year now..

Sometimes it is good to be given "some tough love". But when the case is that it is US fault that they are in that deep shit they are in, when it come to Iraq (in first place) because YOU WAS WARNED AGAINST GOING INTO IRAQ! Not just by the millions of demonstrations in many European cities (I was in one of them, and it as the first demonstrating I ever attend) And in Oslo it was the biggest rally since the victory celebrating in 1945... 60.000 in the demonstrating against the war in Iraq... Pretty big to Norway to be. And in many other city the numbers was the same... But the war was coming, even that I hoped that it would not be a war... And now Americas hopefully mr Obama say that WE have to do something?:.. After the catastrophe that is Iraq I would play the "humble" card little more than this is doing.. And maybe score some points over here.. And then "maybe" work harder to exactly do that, get Europe more working with their share of the world affairs.. But if this was the official "policy" for mr Obama I would not hold my breath to se FRANCE, GERMANY, POLAND, UK and the rest of the European Union, and the nations who are not part of the Union do "their work": After Iraq, US are in no shape to demand something from Europe or other nations.. They may ask, but not DEMAND something from our place...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

and not junior ones, either.

But once the egotism of the Bush years is history, I think it's entirely fair to ask the Europeans to help with worldwide security. It's just that we have to realize that if we don't go it alone, we also don't get to call all the shots. If we're sincere about partnership, then we have to be willing to be a partner, too - not the boss as Bush saw it.

The US taxpayer pays far too large a share for the global military that provides the stick to the carrot in order to bring the entire globe into an efficient economic machine. It will be much easier to get that done if the EU can actually get its act together. Governments must join the 21st century, and eliminate borders, the same way corporations have. If they do not, they will continue to lose power to the corporation. Of course, at some point, the barrier between the state and the corporation must be eradicated as well. Diversity is too economically inefficient.

snip
Moscow strongly opposes the possible deployment by the U.S. of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic as a threat to its national security. Washington says the missile defense system is needed to deter possible strikes from Iran.

Poland has taken a tough stance in talks with the U.S., demanding that Washington upgrade the country's air defense systems as a condition for the deployment of an anti-missile base.

Ex-Soviet Lithuania joined the European Union and NATO in 2004.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080719/114419408.html

Looks like that juggarnaught Baltic republic is willing to compete for and accept 'the carrot' since Polands bid offer and conditions seem too steep for US militarys budget.

NoMoreMyths

And you don't believe that every European nation have paid for every weapon system they was "given" from the US under the cold war and beyond?. If you REALLY believe that the US have given billions worth of weapon away to different european nation for free, you must be really silly.

If US want to spend less money on the global military, they just have to stop acting as the "bully" in the school yard. Even before GWB was coming into power, and was using more and more money to weapon, included that silly "missile shield" that possible would never work as planed.. Or would it?.. I don't know..

Today, US are spending TWICE the sum the next 20 nations are using combined into armed forces. And if the right wings of US would get given right. US would use MORE money to military armed forces.. US would broke their neck if they was to use more money on military spending - it was that who broke the neck on USSR you know...

Europe would never be ONE nation. The national pride and history would never allow europa to be as one.. EU is just a step in the right direction, but would never, in my lifetime be the nucleus for an pan-european nation.. Even if EU have an Parliament and a legasive body and so on.. The European history, are so different in every part of Europe that an Pan-European Union under one flag and one Parliament would not be something to give... But The EU Parliament, and the other parts of EU government would possible WORK together with the different national body's who are in Europe... If you have ever possible read your european history you would understand why european is so proud of their nations, and would fight every move to eliminate borders.. Read your history, from AD 475 and forward. And you would understand in many ways why europe today is what Europe are today..

Diclotican

Another "Rice," eh? :shrug:

that some Duck Tape across her mouth couldn't sort out.

:spray:

:wtf:

Let's start belittling Europe before the election is even over.

:eyes:

Dumb

Dumb

Dumb

Pull ALL of our troops out of the Middle East, Europe, Japan and many other countries.

community would get involved in taking to task the U.S. Empire. God knows, nobody here will.

... among so many here make it abundantly clear why progressives have NO POLITICAL POWER in the USA.

This message is not for Europe, it is for Americans. It reinforces the proposition that Bush has alienated the world. It reinforces the proposition that we wish to partner with the rest of the world to solve problems, and that Bush couldn't partner with the devil himself.

Thank god you detractors aren't running Obama's campaign, he wouldn't have a chance.