Obama's Foreign Trips Carry High Stakes

Meetings With Foreign Leaders Offer Chance To Brandish Foreign Policy Credentials

(AP)  Sen. Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe marks his first high-profile step onto the international stage, a campaign-season audition of sorts for a presidential hopeful pledging a new era in diplomacy and an end to the U.S. combat role in Iraq.

"The stakes are very high for Obama," said Lee Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a supporter of the Illinois Democrat.

While Obama currently leads in the polls, "foreign policy is one area where they (voters) have their doubts" about him, Hamilton said.

Campaign officials have announced stops in Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England. Obama also has pledged to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan this summer, but aides have not said whether those war zones will be part of the same trip.

The trip is planned to put Obama into settings often occupied by presidents, including formal meetings with foreign leaders, public speeches and visits to historical sites.

"It's an opportunity for him to sit down with the international leaders with whom he would have to work as president of the United States, and discuss some of the issues," said David Axelrod, the campaign's senior strategist.

Obama has been critical of Bush's foreign policy in his campaign for the White House, but Hamilton said the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting must tread lightly. "Criticizing foreign policy in Washington in one thing. Criticizing it in Berlin" is another, he said.

"There will be a lot of eyes on him, and we know that," Axelrod said, when asked about the risk of politically damaging errors.

Less than four months before the election, Obama's trip comes at a time when he leads Republican rival John McCain in many polls but runs no better than even on many foreign policy questions.

In a recent Washington Post-ABC poll, 72 percent of those surveyed said McCain knew enough about world affairs to serve effectively as president, compared to 54 percent for Obama.

The two men were in a statistical tie when voters were asked who was more trusted to handle the situation between Israel and the Palestinians or the war in Iraq.

Whatever he says or does, Obama will be under scrutiny from Republicans eager to raise doubts about his readiness to handle foreign and defense policy.

"This trip is about politics. It's a way for Obama to try and compete on foreign policy," said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director.

McCain has left the country twice this summer, once for Canada and a second time to visit Colombia and Mexico. In both cases his principal goal was to express support for expanded trade.

At home, Obama has struggled to consolidate his support among Jewish voters wary of his commitment to Israel.

And while Obama is expected to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert, Palestinian officials have announced he will visit the West Bank. McCain did not meet with Palestinians in his most recent visit to the Middle East in March.

"We welcome this meeting," Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian negotiator, said recently. He added that if Obama is elected "we hope he will stay the course between Israel and the Palestinians in reaching peace and a two-state solution." Bush is trying to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians before leaving office in January.

Obama stirred controversy in June with a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which he endorsed a two-state Israel-Palestine settlement, yet said Jerusalem should remain both the capital of the Jewish nation and undivided.

Palestinian leaders quickly rejected the statement. "...We will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," said Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and the next day, Obama backpedaled.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," he said in a CNN interview. He added that "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city.

Stops in Western European capitals are standard for U.S. politicians seeking to burnish foreign policy credentials, and Hamilton said government leaders are eager to meet the candidate.

Campaign aides have disclosed almost nothing of the European itinerary.

Controversy preceded Obama to Germany when aides sought to use the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin as the site for a speech.

Chancellor Angela Merkel was less than enthusiastic, dispatching spokesman Thomas Steg to say she had "only limited understanding for using the Brandenburg Gate as an election campaign backdrop, as it were, and has expressed skepticism about pursuing such plans."

Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded that the Illinois senator has "considered several sites for a possible speech, and he will choose one that makes most sense for him and his German hosts."

Constructed in 1791 as a symbol of peace in Germany, the gate stood for 28 years during the Cold War at the heavily fortified Berlin Wall that blocked off communist East Germany's sector of the divided city. Probably the capital's best-known monument, it has been restored as a national symbol for a reunified Germany.

[johnnyzmee]

I see "When he (Reagan) chose to invest in "STAR WARS" the Soviets did indeed go broke trying to keep up with it.

Reagan "Chose" to spend on Star Wars defense, which the Soviets tried but were unable to keep up with, But Reagan had nothing to do with it?

Did he "inadvertently'' choose? Accidental like? Did not mean to choose Star Wars? It just kinda happened?

Like I said, I was no fan of Reagan, but his "Cold War" brought down for better or worse, the old Soviet Union.

And soldiers did not die in battle for it.

[ioweign]

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there ...

Posted by PeterP111 at 11:32 AM : Jul 18, 2008

Must be Ronnie''s performance in "Bedtime for Bonzo", that did it. It certainly wasn''t his running up the National Debt with his "VooDoo Economics"...

[raoul12-2009]

P.S. Reagan inadvertently was involved in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Posted by koko98 at 02:35 PM : Jul 18, 2008
_______________________

Exactly, with the emphasis on the word: "inadvertently."

[drewsco]

McCain and the Republicans are getting desperate. They are trying to set a trap for Obama. If he goes to Iraq and changes his position then McCain is going to say Obama is a flip flopper on this issue. If Obama maintains his original position for a troop withdrawal, then McCain is going to say that Obama hasn''t learned a thing after going to Iraq. This is a non-issue just like the Brandenburg gate issue that was started by someone in the Bush administration and promoted by the Republican Party. I won%u2019t be surprised if Obama makes his speech at that huge soccer stadium in Berlin. I''m told that I could hold up to 125,000 people. Can you imagine the impact this would have for Obama. Wait till Obama gets crowds that rival rock concerts. Then the Republicans will say-DO YOU WANT THE EUROPEANS TO PICK YOUR PRESIDENT? They have %u201Cattack%u201D scenarios for every possibility. First, they branded him as being out of touch on foreign policy because he hasn%u2019t traveled, the new mantra will be %u201CWHY IS HE TRAVELING OVERSEAS WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMS HERE AT HOME? (CONTINUED ON NEXT POST)

[drewsco]

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST) REALITY- the Republicans are worried that this trip will provide a huge political advantage for Obama. The majority of Britains and Germans are against the war in Iraq, and many of them think Bush espouses an imperialistic perception of the U.S. with the way he threaten countries with economic sanctions. Obama is the anti-thesis of Bush. McCain is more of the same as Bush. Everytime Bush travels to Germany and Britain there are huge protests. You may not see it on American TV but I live in London and have travelled to Munich frequently and the sentiment against Bush is very bad. You will see the opposite when Obama travels over there. The Republicans will attempt to demonize the Europeans if Obama receives a positive reception.

[raoul12-2009]

The US was spending 3% of GDP on Military, and the equivillent for the Soviets was 25-30% of their GDP or

Posted by Johnnyzmee at 12:53 PM : Jul 18, 2008
_____________________

So you''re saying Reagan made the Soviets spend themselves into oblivion? What garbage! He just happened to be president when in happened. It would have been the same no matter who was president. It was plain luck for Reagan; brilliance had nothing to do with it. By the way, what''s McCain claim to glory other than being shot down?

[raoul12-2009]

McCain has opposed legislation aimed at helping women sue in cases of pay discrimination on the grounds that it could make businesses vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. He criticized Barack Obama%u2019s latest woman-friendly proposals %u2014 guaranteed sick days and more family leave %u2014 as %u201Cbig-government%u201D extravagances. He has voted to restrict women%u2019s access not just to abortion but to birth control and affordable prenatal health care, and %u2014 though his own memory failed him in recalling this last week %u2014 he voted against legislation that would have required insurance companies to include contraceptives as part of their prescription drug coverage.

[johnnyzmee]

"TOTAL NONSENSE. Reagan didn''''t do anything to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union came apart because of economic problems that had nothing to do with Reagan." Posted by raoul12

Raoul - I was no fan of Reagan, but I give him credit, he got the Soviets into a Military Spending war, not a Shooting War. And, the Soviet''s Lost.

The US was spending 3% of GDP on Military, and the equivillent for the Soviets was 25-30% of their GDP or ten times the US amount.

The US took on enormous debt, but survived handily.

The Soviets could not sustain that level of spending, and collapsed. The USSR collapse had EVERYTHING to do with Reagan. And not a single shot was fired. Not a single military troop was killed or maimed.

It was BRILLIANT.... I say that and I did not vote for, and did not otherwise like Reagan.

[johnnyzmee]

I did not vote for either Bush. And, i can''t stand W. But that does not make Obama worthy of being President.

That''s some twisted logic you are using there.

No, wait... it''s just Divisive Partisan Politics as usual. Just like from the "Change" and "Uniter" candidate himself.

If you are a Democrat, McCain = Bad and Obama = Messiah.

That is the extent of the Obamabot support.

[johnnyzmee]

IF YOU WANNA BE TALKED DOWN TO, AND PREACHED TO, IN ALL CAPS THEN OBAMA IS YOUR BOY.

If you want to be part of a grown up discussion, you might prefer McCain.