Mark Steyn, via Memeorandum,
…having decided to elect him President and Community Organizer-in-Chief, the World will not be happy if those hopelessly parochial Yank knuckledraggers decline to endorse the World’s decision as to who should govern them and their ghastly backwater.
The Grauniad says so The world’s verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for.
Harsh? How so? Will I get a strongly-worded letter from Brussels?
An America that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning current anti-Bush feeling into something far worse (emphasis added):…
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.
Reuters reports on a poll where
A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll.
I still haven’t figured out why Latin America, which eagerly wants more free trade with the USA, wants Obama to be president.
I have spoken to several politicians and economists from Latin America, and the one answer to the question, “What would be the best thing the US could do for Latin America?” they all gave in common was “Free trade.”
Obama wants to end NAFTA:
The Democrats have blocked the Free Trade agreement with Colombia.
Do the Latin Americans understand where Obama stands of free trade? Apparently not.
Do the populist socialists want someone in the White House that will perpetuate the isolationism, poverty and instability that keeps populists in power? Very likely. As Mary O’Grady points out,
there is no doubt that the agreements, warts and all, have aided in the process of dismantling trade barriers, strengthening the rule of law, and moving the region in the direction of democratic capitalism.
The consequences are dire:
Mr. Obama would reverse regional trade progress. He supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to the Colombia FTA, even though it will open new markets for U.S. exporters. He promises to “stand firm” against pacts like Cafta and proposes to force a renegotiation of Nafta, which is likely to disrupt North American supply chains and damage the U.S. economy. By heaping new labor and environmental regulations on our trading partners, his “fair trade” proposal will raise costs for our trading partners and reduce their competitiveness.
Perhaps worst of all, his antitrade bias will signal the region that protectionism is back in style in the U.S., and encourage new trade wars. No good can come from that, for the U.S. or for Latin America.
Which may be why whole lot of people who can’t vote for Obama are endorsing him.
Maybe the Guardian will recreate that stunt of having Our Betters in Europe (all bow) email Americans to enlighten us as to why we should vote for The One.
I’m sure it will work much better, this time. *snicker*
I still haven’t figured out why Latin America, which eagerly wants more free trade with the USA, wants Obama to be president.
I have spoken to several politicians and economists from Latin America, and the one answer to the question, “What would be the best thing the US could do for Latin America?” they all gave in common was “Free trade. Obama wants to end NAFTA.
Perhaps the reply is that much of the overseas support for Obama is based upon emotion and not thinking. Consider this gem from the Guardian article.
“If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world.”
Apparently they don’t realize that these days the Democrats are the Isolationist party. This ain’t 1940 any more. Moreover, they apparently don’t realize that the anti-American invective pouring out of the EUROSNEERS and others will only increase American tendencies towards isolationism, and the Guardian article and the corresponding comments are replete with EUROSNEERS.
Some fatcats and political leaders in Latin America may want the payoffs more NAFTA type agreements bring but average people? Why would they want the environmental and wage exploitation that comes with letting predatory multinational businesses wipe out their local ones?
In McCain’s first big foreign policy speech in March he called for booting Russia out of the G8. He subsequently flip flopped on that like about every
other position he’s ever held. A McCain adviser told a McClatchy newspaper reporter that the candidate’s policy on Russia and the G-8 as “a holdover from an earlier period,” adding, “It doesn’t reflect where he is right now.”
But in July, McCain flopped back to the “earlier period,” saying excluding Russia from the G8 would be “what’s best for America” and might “improve” Russian behavior. His surrogate Joe Lieberman is
parroting the same idiotic nonsense these days.
A good case certainly can be made for trying to punish Russia for it’s incursion into Georgia. But this G8 talk is just foolish and shows a fundamental
misunderstanding of how the G8 works. They work through consensus, Russia would have to approve its own removal. A senior Bush administration official recently conceded, “It’s not even a theoretical discussion. It’s an impossible discussion.” The official described McCain’s idea as “just a dumb thing.”
Now you may not have heard much about McCain’s G8 nonsense because at the time the US media was busy talking about Barack/Hillary 24/7. But believe me the Germans heard about it. And frankly they don’t want a US president telling them they have to make a choice between heating their homes in the winter with Russian natural gas or siding with the US.
Russia can easily be expelled from the G8 because the invitation to join came from a separate group of finance ministers called the G7. Russia is allowed to participate fully in G8 but often is not invited and has no status to even speak unless through another one of the members of the G7. Russia since it has joined is still ranked below Brazil in terms of GDP and last among 30 nations pressing for membership in democratization. There are only two areas Russia has kept its promise on since joining and only its actions against terrorist financing have been successful while its debt forgiveness has also been accomplished with the debtor nation agreeing to buy Russian weapons.
I’m not to sure where this idea of consensus comes from as rarely does the G8 make any policy pronouncements other than trying to bring certain issues to the world’s attention. Can anybody even remember what the agenda was for the last meeting and where it was?
Another point is that the only reason Russia can send such a small flotilla and two 25 year old bombers is because the US has essentially made the Carbbean safe for passage of all nations. So we end up with the ludicrous saber rattling of two commodity nations that are safely behind the naval shield of the Empire.
BTW-If you are going to borrow an opinion piece with unnamed sources it might be considered ethical to cite and link to the Hartfor Courant where most of the text came from.