Day: October 16, 2012
Second meeting, second chance
The Second Meeting, a documentary film by Zeljko Mirkovic, examines a period Serbs want to forget but need to remember, Serbian Ambassador Vladimir Petrovic said at last night’s premier in Washington, DC. The war between Serbia and NATO captured in this film illustrates how successful America and Serbia have been in repairing relations. Philip Reeker, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs who supervises the Balkan region, pointed out that this year is the 133rd anniversary of US-Serbia diplomatic relations.
The film however focuses on the developing relationship between two families. Serb Zoltan Dani, now a baker, served in his country’s military for over thirty years. Dani’s Yugoslav anti-aircraft missile unit shot down an American F-117A “stealth” fighter participating in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on March 27, 1999. The American pilot was Dale Zelko. Zelko survived and managed to evade capture. An American search and rescue unit found and evacuated him by helicopter. Dani’s unit, often targeted, was never hit.
The incident pushed both men into the limelight. Zelko declined press appearances, despite suggestions from General Wesley Clark and President Bill Clinton. Dani was lauded for his ability to find and successfully target stealth planes but refused generous offers from other militaries over the next few years. In the end, both men chose to leave military service and pursue lives based on their core values: family and faith. The title of the film references not only a second meeting, but a second chance.
Mirkovic’s film uses a mix of video diary clips made by Zelko and Dani, old news footage, and material from Mirkovic’s film crew. It strives to expose the humanity beneath international conflict. In the question and answer period after the film, Mirkovic underlined that there are not two sides to this story. Both men acted on orders and dealt with the consequences. Both joined the military because of their pride in their countries and in the end, both left the military because of a desire to spend more time with family.
The message here is the simple and undeniable truth of our shared humanity.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A few questions for tonight
It’s a high campaign week. I don’t expect tonight’s town hall debate to focus much foreign policy. Apart from budget, about which I’ll write during the next week, the main difference on international affairs is one of tone, not substance: Romney accuses Obama of projecting weakness, not strength. On Iraq and Afghanistan in particular Romney has criticized the Administration’s past performance but offered little or no idea how he would handle things differently in the future. Obama has so far mostly vaunted the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden, and mocked Romney’s lack of distinctive policy proposals.
But there are several areas of real difference: China, Israel/Palestine and Iran are the important ones. A few sharp questions are in order.
China: Romney says he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. Someone tonight should ask what difference that would make.
It could form the basis of a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO), but there is no guarantee that the complaint would be found justified or that the WTO could provide a remedy. In fact, the Chinese currency (renminbi, whose primary unit is the yuan) has already been revalued by more or less the percentage it was once regarded as undervalued. This was currency manipulation the U.S., including Mr. Romney, should welcome. Chinese retaliation for an American president who declared Beijing a currency manipulator could include not buying U.S. government bonds and maybe even manipulating the renminbi back down, which would help revive the slowing Chinese economy. In short, the U.S. has as much to lose from this macho first-day-in-office declaration as the very uncertain gains.
The Obama administration deserves at least some of the credit for the revaluation of the renminbi. It has also filed trade complaints focused on auto parts with the WTO, but so far as I can tell none of those have been decided yet. It takes years. Using the WTO to bring specific cases has clear advantages over the blanket “currency manipulator” approach: the Chinese have agreed to WTO rules and retaliation is far less likely if a specific case is won there.
Israel/Palestine: Romney now says he favors the two-state solution that has been the U.S. goal for a long time, putting him in tune with the rest of the world. But that’s not what he said on the 47% video, when he proposed just kicking the can down the road and hoping for something good to happen. He gets substantial funding from Sheldon Adelson and others who actively oppose the two-state solution and want Israel to hold on to “Judea and Samaria,” aka the West Bank. You can choose to believe that Romney would buck his moneyed supporters, but I doubt it.
The Obama Administration has failed to deliver a two-state solution, like the administrations that preceded it. You can blame it all on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right-wing government if you like, but the fact remains: little or nothing has been accomplished between Israel and Palestine, which however has begun to build a more credible state apparatus than existed in the past. Little credit to be gained on this issue, except that the relative peace has held, including with Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The question to be asked is this: what specifically would you do to bring about a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine?
Iran: The difference here is certainly in part one of tone. Those who have spoken with Romney advisor John Bolton come away with the impression that he would relish war with Iran, which other advisors have advocated. Obama administration insiders want a deal and see a credible threat of force as a tool in getting one.
But there is also the “red line” issue. The President has refused to specify his red line, essentially reserving to himself the decision on when Iran has gone so far that he needs to use force. Romney wants to prevent Iran from getting the “capacity” to produce nuclear weapons. This is in some ways just as vague a concept, but it implies willingness to draw the line, for example, at accumulation of only as much 20% enriched uranium as would be required to make less than one nuclear weapon. Romney also wants to reach an explicit agreement on the red line with Israel, so that there is “no daylight” between us on this issues.
Personally, I prefer an American president who decides whether to go to war based on American interests and does not outsource the decision to a foreign leader. But however you feel about it, someone should ask tonight how each candidate would decide whether or not to go to war with Iran.
RSS - Posts
