Which world leader should the next president meet in the Oval Office first?

Much has been made by Republicans and many pundits about Barack Obama's willingness to have diplomatic-level conversations, and even personal policy discussions with leaders of countries that have been long-standing enemies such as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. McCain blasted the freshman senator for this position during the first debate and earned the public defense of Henry Kissinger, perhaps the most established diplomat in modern history. The charges of naivety and poor judgement made against Senator Obama are fair when considered under the 20th century foreign policy paradigm; we live in the 21st century and paradigmatic disruptions are weekly occurances this day in age and in my opinion the end of the Cold War should have been the first sign that Kissinger's relevance was fleeting.

What I would ask both presidential candidates if given the opportunity to meet them in person, I would ask them which world leader they would meet first and what was their motivation for choosing that individual. The subtle signals that this seemingly random and unavoidable choice sends to the global community are immeasurable and can set the tone for global trade, security and development on a path which serves the incoming administration's goals during their first term. President Bush had his first major foreign summit at his Texas ranch with the newly inaugurated president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, and the decision set a clear tone for his first four years. From that time forward it was considered exclusive to be invited to the Crawford ranch as the leader of a foreign government and Bush used these high-profile summits to establish his image with voters as a dude.

Now Prime Minister Putin wouldn't be a bad choice for the first face-to-face policy discussion the next president has in the White House, if for no other reason than to show the world that his puppetry of new Russion President Dmitri Medvedev and Russian oligarchs around the world is transparent. If Putin is going to be ruling Russia, which it seems clear he still is and will be for the indefinite future, he needs to be forced to ratify the Russian constitution and eliminate the term limitation of the Russian executive that were unnecessary twenty-five years ago when instituted. That is probably what I would do and perhaps something either candiate may decide, though I suspect Obama would be more likely to go through the charade with Putin's pawns to get at Putin personally.

Whom would you choose to meet with Senators McCain and Obama?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Kissinger defends McCain on Iranian relations
• Ian Williams: In debate, Barack Obama tacitly endorses the neoconservative worldview
• Vladimir Putin speaks in Iran
• The TV Watch: Beyond Ideology, a Generational Clash
• Mahmoud's Man

Why we should not interfere with Russia's Putin if he seeks to retain power by amending constitution...

Putin keeps Russia guessing over succession: Telegraph

An issue that was given significant attention during the first couple years of Vladimir Putin's second term was the fact that Russia's constitution prohibits him from seeking another term at the helm of the Kremlin, but as of late the issue has faded because of Putin's lack of any indication that he wishes to amend the constitution to give himself that option. However, as his time in office winds down, the Russian President has clearly yet to decide how to proceed on this matter, which leads me to believe that this is going to become a seriously vetted issue within the international media.

There is a clear bias against the amending of the Russian constitution amongst political pundits on the FoxNews Network, and in his only appearance in an exclusive interview on that channel on FoxNews Sunday with Chris Wallace, the veteran anchor tried several tactics in an attempt to get a firm commitment from Putin that he would not, under any circumstances, seek to extend his Presidency through the leveraging of his overwhelming governing majority in the legislative Duma.

President Putin is in the fortunate position of governing with veto-proof executive authority, and if he wants to change the Constitution to give himself limitless opportunity to pursue reelection to his current position it is unlikely that anything can be done, short of a political coup, to prevent him from doing this. To make it an international incident if he were to do so would fly in the face of any maturation that has occurred in the relationships the US and Russia now enjoy. Additionally, it has been US policy since 9-11 that it is perfectly reasonable for General Pervez Musharref, President of Pakistan, to refuse to relinquish power despite the lack of a viable legal reasoning, other than that he is the ideal partner in the war being waged against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

I had the pleasure of taking a Russian Foreign Policy class while pursuing my undergraduate degree at DePaul University, and half of the class was spent breaking down the background and governing style of the young and complex young Russian President. He is a leader who entered his current position as a reluctant and apprehensive politician with bold policies. He has grown in the past seven years into a very impressive public figure who enjoys widespread popularity throughout the young Russian Republic, which has been in desperate need of a modern political hero since the fall of the Soviet Empire. Any American policy should be one that holds the will and well-being of the Russian citizens above all other concerns, and though the Russian government should be pressed on issues such as censorship and corruption, we should be fortunate to have a stable and thriving Russian government with which to discuss these issues. Now is not the time to push too aggressively, for no such policy will not stop Putin from leading his country for the indefinite future. We need to embrace this fact as a great sign of stability and steady progress at a very early stage in the formation of a "modern" Russian state.

Tags: putin, russia, moscow, russian politics, kremlin

Obsurd statements from EU, Russian officials and liberal US media show where their true sympathies lie...

Senior European Union, Russian and Indian officials, along with every "compassionate" and "concerned" member of the US media, expressed their dismay following the execution of Saddam Hussein last evening in Iraq, while President Bush and most American political figures found peace and closure in the long battle fought by American troops who are ONLY IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF SADDAM. As I mentioned in the previous post, Alan Colmes from Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes disgusted me with his negative, "how can I make Bush look bad?" comments which were posed with such bristled rigidity that he appeared to have taken a large horse tranquilizer, but he never says much intelligent anyways. Colmes must have insinuated or flat out stated that the US was executing the former-Iraqi president and that they had failed to provide him a fair trial, oh wait, it was that they were risking provoking retaliatory attacks from Sunni-backed terror groups in and around Baghdad, oh but I mean, uh, oh, PLEASE SHUT UP ALAN.

I can respect the EU and Russian officials publicly questioning the moral premise for the death penalty, and choosing to express their distaste for the Iraqi governments use of the harsh measure following what many are calling an "unfair" (whatever that means) trial. I have absolutely no respect for the people that have chosen to take issue with President Bush and the interim Iraqi government for acting barbarically, for if they were so concerned about due process and the letter of the law in Iraq maybe they should show up and do something other than sell munitions and rifles to our our terrorist enemy.

Saddam was not a good man, I have never heard anyone suggest that, but he received more sympathy for his execution last night from people who were never able to extend the slightest bit of doubt or uncertainty in the case of Scott Peterson, whose wife's body happened to turn up in the same Bay that every news channel in the US had been broadcasting 24/7 had been the very location his had gone boating that morning?! If you killed Lacy Peterson, wouldn't you have thought the police were offering you an easy way out by leading you to the spot he was present at all morning when she disappeared? If that is not an obvious reason for at least one juror (OR MEMBER OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA) to rule out the death penalty though they still thought he "probably" did it.

However, despite all of the videotaped evidence of Saddam's atrocities, the wars we waged against him, none of this stuff matters because Bush might come out looking good at the end of the day. Someone should send out an intra-hippy memo and make sure these lunatics understand exactly how reckless they have become with words that aren't just empty rhetoric but rather brand what is by no stretch of the imagination a loss for the American military, but is instead a loss for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, left-wing political hacks like David Letterman, Chris Matthews, Nora O'Donnell, and the entire cast of The View, think it is appropriate and classy to remind us everyday how much smarter they are than the President, or how much Donald Rumsfeld reminds them of Hitler, or pages worth of other ridiculous ad hominum attacks that have penetrated the thick skulls of their obviously sedated/shallow viewers that encourage such blather.

Personally, having now had the opportunity to watch the video footage of the execution I must admit it looked a little bit creepy, but I felt no remorse for the disgraced and condemned Butcher of Baghdad. When I heard he was dead I was reminded of the feeling of relief I had when as a little kid I had heard that famed serial-killer and child-rapist John Wayne Gasey was dead. I don't understand the type of moral-mindset that would allow a person, or in this case dozens of people, to find it appropriate to stand on principal when the world has lost the man that was the cause of all the problems these same people are so frequently bemoaning and relegating to the dust bin of American history.