McCain e Zapatero

Ora aqui está um daqueles casos que entretém a imprensa europeia e parece não incomodar minimamente os eleitores norte-americanos -- "eles estão preocupados com muitas coisas, a economia ou a imigração; não a Espanha", comenta a jornalista de uma rádio em espanhol de Miami que entrevistou o candidato republicano John McCain. Uma das perguntas tinha a ver com o potencial interesse de McCain em receber o primeiro-ministro espanhol, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, que até agora tem encontrado a porta da Casa Branca fechada, aparentemente porque a Administração Bush não lhe perdoa ter retirado as tropas do Iraque. A primeira resposta do senador do Arizona dava a entender que ou McCain não sabia quem era Zapatero ou onde fica a Espanha. Pressionado quatro vezes, o candidato manteve a sua resposta: "Confrontarei todos os líderes dos países que não partilham os nossos valores e a nossa filosofia: direitos humanos, democracia e liberdade".

Madeleine Albright

A nomenklatura Clinton continua a demonstrar a sua adesão à candidatura de Barack Obama. Madeleine Albright, que foi a primeira mulher a ocupar o cargo de Secretária de Estado, diz que a o candidato democrata tem a "dureza" e o "julgamento" necessários para reconstruir a política externa dos Estados Unidos. "Não podemos voltar, mais uma vez, a tomar a decisão errada", sublinha.

Geórgia

Randy Scheunemann, poderoso lobbyista de Washington e um dos principais conselheiros de política externa do senador republicano John McCain, foi representante dos interesses da Geórgia na América até ao passado mês de Maio (segundo um texto do jornal The Washington Post, desde 2004 a sua firma recebeu mais de 800 mil dólares para promover causas georgianas como o acesso à Nato ou o combate à insurreição da Ossétia do Sul).
A crise no Cáucaso é um daqueles tipos de "externalidades" ou "imprevistos" que podem (ou não) ter potencial para mudar o rumo de uma campanha. As crises internacionais, por mais distantes ou irrelevantes, podem sempre ser jogadas como um trunfo para obter dividendos políticos domésticos. Com Obama calado em Honolulu, tem sido John McCain a "beneficiar" com o conflito -- é inegável que o candidato está em excelente forma, discutindo apaixonadamente todos os detalhes da crise, exibindo o seu conhecimento militar e demonstrando a sua capacidade de liderança. Orador aborrecido em temas de economia, McCain brilha quando fala de guerra ou de questões de segurança (aqui a opinião do blogger Andrew Sullivan).
O problema para McCain tem a ver com as "ligações" dos dirigentes da sua campanha — e do establishment republicano — à clique política da Geórgia. Num país em que a mínima suspeita serve para alimentar intrincadas teorias da conspiração, esta coincidência pode ser prejudicial para o candidato. As coisas assumem um tom ainda mais dúbio quando se sabe que Karl Rove, o mais temido operacional republicano, se terá encontrado com o Presidente Saakashvili em Julho. É que quando se trata de Rove, até os mais cépticos dizem ter suspeitas...

Barack Obama em Berlim

"Shades of Ronald Reagan couldn't have been more present had he screamed his name out loud", Christopher C. Hull, professor assistente do departamento de Government da Universidade de Georgetown, em declarações ao PÚBLICO.

p.s. O discurso na íntegra, aqui.
p.p.s. O comentário da campanha de John McCain, aqui.

A mesma estratégia de vitória para o Afeganistão

Excerptos da resposta do senador republicano John McCain, num discurso em Albuquerque, Novo México

Novo curso no Iraque
"Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy -- a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America's enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

Sucesso no Afeganistão depende do Iraque
"Another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.
Senator Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge -- which Senator Obama opposed -- that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."

Estratégia para a vitória
"That strategy will have several components. Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them. But sending more forces, by itself, is not enough to prevail. In the 18 months that Senator Obama has been campaigning for the presidency, the number of NATO forces in Afghanistan has already almost doubled -- from 33,000 in January 2007 to about 53,000 today. Yet security has still deteriorated. What we need in Afghanistan is exactly what Gen. Petraeus brought to Iraq: a nationwide civil-military campaign plan that is focused on providing security for the population. Today no such integrated plan exists. When I am commander-in-chief, it will.
(...) A successful counterinsurgency requires more than military force. It requires all instruments of our national power, and that military and civilian leaders work together, at all levels, under a joint plan. (...) I will appoint a highly-respected national security leader, based in the White House and reporting directly to the President, whose sole mission will be to ensure we bring the war in Afghanistan to a successful end.
(...) We also need to increase our non-military assistance to the Afghan government, with a multi-front plan for strengthening its institutions, the rule of law, and the economy in order to provide a sustainable alternative to the drug trade. Getting control of narcotics trafficking is central to our efforts in Afghanistan. Alternative crops must be able to get to market and traffickers must be arrested and prosecuted by enhanced Special Courts. We should agree on specific governance and development benchmarks with the Afghan government, then work with them closely to ensure they are met."

Derrotar radicalismo no Paquistão
"A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan, where terrorists today enjoy sanctuary. This must end. We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there -- the strategy used successfully in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. We must convince Pakistanis that this is their war as much as it is ours. And we must empower the new civilian government of Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health, and education. Senator Obama has spoken in public about taking unilateral military action in Pakistan. In trying to sound tough, he has made it harder for the people whose support we most need to provide it. I will not bluster, and I will not make idle threats. But understand this: when I am commander -in-chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run, and nowhere they can hide."

Estratégia para lá de Bagdad

Excerptos do discurso de Barack Obama sobre segurança nacional, no Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center de Washington DC

As oportunidades perdidas do pós-11 de Setembro
"Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.
We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
(...) Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

A guerra do Iraque e a política externa
"What’s missing in our debate about Iraq – what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."

Nova estratégia de segurança nacional
"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Retirada do Iraque
"Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back – we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world.
(...) I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq’s Security Forces has testified that Iraq’s Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq’s security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq’s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.
(...) To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.
We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy – that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq’s future – one that includes all of Iraq’s neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union – because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq."

Mais tropas para o Afeganistão e mais assistência financeira
"I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.
Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made – not just in Kabul – but out in Afghanistan’s provinces. As a part of this program, we’ll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared."

Pressão sobre o Paquistão
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
Make no mistake: we can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam."

Todos os elementos do poder americano contra o Irão
"We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.
There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That’s why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence – including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.
We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime."

Independência energética e aquecimento global
"One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. (...) This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change.
(...) This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern – this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security – and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump – we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that’s exactly what I’ll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won’t do. I’ll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We’ll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy – solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe.
(...) I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We’ll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world."

Novos e velhos aliados
"Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It’s time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It’s time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world’s largest democracy – India – to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It’s time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It’s time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It’s time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It’s time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.
And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That’s why I’ll create a Shared Security Partnership Program – a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That’s why we’ll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That’s why we’ll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That’s what we can do if we are ready to engage the world.
We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That’s why I’ll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Política externa de Barack Obama

É extensa, mas vale a pena ler a transcrição da entrevista de Fareed Zakaria a Barack Obama, ontem no seu programa da CNN. É todo o pensamento de política externa do candidato democrata — do fundamentalismo islâmico como o "desafio transcendental do século XXI" e a pena de morte para Osama Bin Laden, à Rússia, China e proliferação nuclear, a guerra do Iraque, o Irão ou Jerusalém como a capital de Israel.