Barack Obama's Nobel Prize: A Debate

Barack Obama's award of the Nobel Peace Prize, with nominations having closed just a month into his Presidential term, has raised eyebrows. Here a number of Contributors discuss the award. Why was it made, and is it deserved? What’s the political thinking behind it? How will affect Obama’s ability to pursue his foreign policy objectives? What will be reaction domestically?

Arne Westad - This is a Nobel for good intentions rather than for achievements, Since Obama had been in office for all of a week and a half when the deadline for nominations ran out (on 1 February), it is obviously the promise of Obama that is being rewarded. In this sense it is probably first and foremost intended as a prize to the Americans for having had the courage to elect him. But it is hard to claim that the prize is going to the one who has done most for the cause of peace over the past year.

Nick Kitchen - It's hard to see that this can be a Nobel Prize 'for' anything - whilst the committee can always make decision after the end of nominations and do not have to draw solely from the official list of nominees, what exactly is Barack Obama supposed to have actually done to merit the award?

Nigel Ashton - This is the Nobel Prize for hope. You can't make a case that Obama has achieved anything yet in terms of ending the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel/Palestine. It's also the Nobel Prize for not being George Bush.

George Lawson - The Nobel Foundation has had its fair share of odd moments. In its time, it has nominated Stalin and Mussolini, ignored Churchill and Ghandi and given the peace prize to Henry Kissinger and Theodore Roosevelt, neither of whom can exactly be regarded as peaceniks. Awarding the prize to a president who, by his own admission, has barely even started to make an impact on the world stage is right up there amongst the committee's quirkiest decisions.

Danny Quah - I think the Global Financial Crisis and the trillions of dollars the international community committed to global rescue has thrown into disarray all semblance of calm, reasoned, longer-term thinking in anything but the hard sciences [in which I would include Physiology or Medicine] and, paradoxically, the higher, more abstract realms of thinking [Literature]. In between - Peace, Economics - everyone has been only grabbing at straws and even, perhaps with hindsight years from now, decisions that might eventually turn out to be wise will right now seem knee-jerk and unthinking.

Mick Cox - Am I the only one who thinks it may have been a very good idea to have awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? We can of course twitter on about it being too premature and all that. However. we do need to remind ourselves why he may have been considered fit for the peace prize. After all, in less than a year, Obama has talked seriously about nuclear disarmament, made a real effort to overcome the divide between the West and the Moslem world, done something to restore the peace process in the Middle East, kept open some line of communication to the Iranians when urged not to, got rid of a provocative Ballistic Missile system in Europe, tried to defrost the US relationship with Russia, moved quickly to maintain good relations with China, led enthusiastically on global warming, made evident his desire to seek some new deal with Cuba, and stressed the need for the United States to work with and through the UN. Indeed, in his speech to the UN he even defined security in ways that should have warmed the cockles of every cosmopolitan and world society heart. So what is so bizarre about the decision?

NK - Perhaps the fact that on each of these issues any 'progress' is at best encouraging first steps. Even on Guantanamo, the key 'peace'-related pledge of the campaign, is not closed yet, and the practice has proved more difficult than the good intentions.

NA - Probably the most bizarre element of the announcement was the emphasis placed on Obama's supposed quest to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This part of his agenda isn't even supposed to be achievable.

Charlotte Armah - When I first heard of the award - I was surprised. 'So soon?' I thought and then I smiled as I realised that I had tacitly accepted that he was a contender and was just quibbling over the timing. Even John Bolton's whinge is not that Obama was awarded the Prize, but that it seems to go to Democratic US presidents! So what exactly is the issue here? That Obama was awarded the prize at all or that he has been awarded the prize so early into his presidency that he has not had time to achieve anything significantly concrete to deserve the award?

AW - Certainly within the United States, there is the danger of the Peace Prize being seen as Norway’s way of rewarding liberal US leaders just for being liberal.

NK - The Right are going to have a field day: for the listeners of Limbaugh the only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal who's feted by Europeans.

GL - But you can see where the decision is coming from. It has hardly been a vintage year for peace. The world is a mess and Obama, for many people, is its best hope. There is going to be little progress in the Middle East, Afghanistan or any other global hotspot without active engagement from the US government. And undeniably, the president and his advisers have been nothing if not active over the past few months. However, initiatives don't always yield outcomes and it is not yet clear whether Obama's presidency will succeed, or offer a 21st century rerun of the Carter administration, another occasion when a relatively inexperienced president scored high on hope, but low on delivery.

AW - It's certainly a sign of how oriented towards US affairs the Nobel Committee is. It's easier to encourage someone of promise and power than rewarding those who take risks for the cause of peace and human rights – say, Chinese dissidents or Iraqi critics of the occupation

DQ - The first thought I had when I saw the blogosphere reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was, Thank goodness, this takes the heat off Economics - nothing that happens Monday will be worse than what's just happened with Peace. My second thought was, Well, actually, maybe not. I figure that this only rounds up a terrible year since September 2008. The various Nobel Committees here should have just called the whole thing off this year - stopped early for lunch and quietly gone home.

MC - There have certainly been odder - and less defensible - decisions made by the "Committee" in the past. What about Woodrow Wilson (who loved the Old South and opposed racial equality)? Menachem Begin (a terrorist in some people's opinion), Mother Terrsa (who seemed to loved other people's poverty while hating condoms)? And of course, dear Henry K. the man who gave so many green lights to so many horrible regimes and dictators in the Third World that one wonders why he was never arraigned for crimes against humanity.

DQ - I don't discount the reaction from the wired masses - even if I reserve the right to disagree with them. They are literate and numerous (the ones I read, anyway), and the integrated weight of their judgement is, after all, the coalface where both peace and social science scratch global reality. But I thought most telling in all the lamenting and complaining on Obama's being awarded the Prize, I have heard no strong well-defined, anywhere close to a majority, statement of the kind "It should have been X instead." The controversy surrounding Obama's being awarded the Prize is not that his actions have taken the world forwards in some people's eyes, and backwards in others. That we could live with, and indeed, it is that that has formed the controversy in all previous Laureates. In this case, however, the controversy, if you want to call it that, is that there has been yet either no action or no result. The difficulty is there was no one else the Nobel Committee could have turned to instead to award their Prize. In these circumstances, the Nobel Committee should have just shut down for the year.

NK - It's certainly an odd assumption to make that the world merits an annual award of this nature - the absence of standout candidates shouldn't mean we plump for potential.

CA - I'm not an academic or an IR expert so I can't debate whether there have been worthier winners or if someone more deserving was overlooked. I agree with Danny that it's very telling that the outcry is not 'It should have gone to .............. fill in the blank.'I would point to the fact that there is almost no international issue in which the transformational impact of positive US engagement is not considered a critical success factor - whether it's Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, nuclear proliferation, the Middle East peace process, climate change, or the global economic and financial crises.

GL - In truth, awarding the prize to Obama is likely to have little substantive effect on the prospects for peaceful change around the world. Far more important will be what goes on beneath the surface of these global celebrity contests - in the nitty gritty of debates in Washington, Tehran, Moscow and elsewhere. But that is not really the point. The prize is a symbol, partly given it must be said, out of fear that things could get worse before they get better. Just as his failure to swing crucial IOC votes to Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid did not destroy - or even significantly dent - Obama's appeal abroad, the award of the Nobel Prize is likely to end up as a minor footnote on a busy presidency. Obama can afford to win - or lose - the world's beauty pageants. But there are other, much thornier, aspects of world politics where he cannot afford to fail.

MC - That's right: moreover, if we were to be real purists, then why fetishize the prize at all? Set up by a Swede who made a fortune from wars - perhaps we should be arguing against the prize in toto rather than against specific individuals who have won it. So let's not join the hue and cry. Lots of people have already attacked the decision including some sympathetic to Obama himself. But many have not - including a very large number of people with the least power and influence who, rightly or wrongly, see Obama not as an American but as a symbol of hope in a world where there isn't much of that commodity going around right now.

CA - We all saw the way the US presidential campaign captured international imagination - who would have thought that the French (the French, for God's sake) would be clamouring to meet a black US president! These are unprecedented times on just about any level we can think of - and in Obama, we currently have an international leader of the superpower that has this incredible impact on people. When was the last time we saw world leaders jostling each other to have their picture taken with the US president or seasoned, hard bitten journalists using their camera phones to take pictures for themselves after they'd taken pictures for their newspaper or magazine? We can sit and debate whether or not Obama is a worthy winner, or if this impact will last and all sorts of logic. Sometimes, we just analyse too much. And sometimes it's as simple and as complex as needing hope and finding it in a single individual. Maybe, it's not a bad thing for him to have received an award so early in his Presidency that reminds him, it's not just the hopes of the American people he carries on his shoulders.

NK - This may however be exactly the kind of thing that creates domestic barriers to the achievement of those hopes. A good deal of the American people resent being constantly called upon to be the world's saviour and punish Presidents who value international acclaim over America's domestic priorities or national interest. In that sense, the Nobel committee, in seeking to encourage the early intitiatives of the Obama administration, may have created a rod for the President's back.

Update on Honduras from Central America:

In recent days several things have become clearer about the recent coup in Honduras, and its effects are being felt around the region.

 

Firstly, there is a significant difference between the story being sold around the world by the mainstream media, and that which is being relayed in Central America via local radio stations in Honduras, and local journalists who are still managing to report on the situation in the country. On the day when another 3 people have been reportedly murdered by the illegal regime, this information gap is more than interesting.

 

A quick look at the ‘western’ media indicates that Zelaya was indeed overthrown, but he provoked this coup by carrying out policies he wasn’t elected for, pushing for re-election through a ‘popular survey’, and allying his government with the arch-villains of the region, Cuba and Venezuela.

 

Some critical analysis and context for the situation in Honduras:

Firstly, in the region there are several governments with shaky claims to democracy and the rule of law – Mexico, where it has been conveniently forgotten, the second major electoral fraud in 20 years was carried out in 2006. A series of irregularities led to the right-wing candidate winning by 0.64%, hundreds of thousands demonstrated on the streets, and an alternative government existed for a while, but the international media was at the time obsessing about the ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine, and this outrageous fraud conveniently passed into history. Colombia, where Alvaro Uribe, at the head of a regime that has seen thousands of politically motivated murders and disappearances, has also been making efforts to alter the constitution to allow his own re-election, partly motivated by fears of a Fujimori-esque end to his political career. In Costa Rica, President Oscar Arias was himself only re-elected after the constitutional court ruled void the legislation outlawing re-election, in rather murky circumstances. In Peru, Alan Garcia has just overseen the brutal repression of indigenous demonstrations, which have seen him add at least 100 lives to his already macabre CV. Surely Zelaya’s sins pale in comparison?

 

His main crime appears to have been the non-binding vote on the constituent assembly, which has been used as the pretext for the coup. This vote, if it won, would have opened the path to calling a constituent assembly, which could not have been held before Zelaya had already left office, given that his term finishes in November. Thus any re-election would take place in at least 4 years time, hardly the mark of a megalomaniac. The real desire for the constituent assembly came from the need to reform a constitution that was written in the shadow of military dictatorship, and thus blocked significant social reforms.

 

The policies he began to carry out were part of his promises to bring economic growth and change. This programme was stymied when the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the US government offered only moderate sums of aid in response to Zelaya’s appeal, sums which were doubled by ALBA. ALBA further guaranteed Honduran fuel supplies for the next decades, allowing a measure of long-term economic stability. This turn to ALBA, was followed by assistance in social programmes and by an increasing political alignment with the ALBA countries. This alliance was further bolstered by the economic failure of the 2006 FTA signed with the US, which has seen the Honduran exports dwarfed by imports causing rising unemployment, especially in agriculture, as NAFTA did in Mexico. The poverty gap has widened, and it is this that President Zelaya was trying to tackle, by adopting measures that threatened the future of the FTA.

 

Here we have the clues for the curious involvement of the US in this crisis. Honduras under Zelaya became an ally of the ALBA, and thus a political enemy of US pushed neo-liberal economic policies, which coincidentally took the world into the current economic crisis. He also threatened US economic interests, since joining ALBA was incompatible with any FTA.

 

What is the evidence of US involvement? Well, the US government has admitted that representatives were in talks with the plotters for a week before it took place, ‘trying to find another way’ out of the situation. Furthermore, the appearance of several people linked to past and present administrations points towards a deeper involvement.

 

Just in the month before the coup a civic democratic forum was formed from a variety of Honduran ‘civil society’ organisations, many of which received funds from the $50 million dollars that USAID and the nefarious Reagan-founded NED distribute each year. Just this year the International Republican Institute, part of the NED, received 1.2 million dollars to use in Honduras. This Civic Democratic Forum immediately declared that the coup had ‘saved democracy’ in Honduras. This recipe is similar to that followed in ‘colour revolutions’ in Eastern Europe and to the functions of opposition groups in Venezuela and Bolivia.

 

Furthermore, a series of the State Department actors in this crisis have links to US policy areas characterised by overt and covert hostility. The current US ambassador, Hugo Llorens - a Cuban exile - was formerly in charge of the Andean Affairs section of the NSC, and as such, was reporting to Otto Reich and Bush during the 2002 coup against Chavez in Venezuela. He joins a series of other ambassadorial appointments in Central America, which include people linked to US Intelligence (Nicaragua), the campaign against Cuba (El Salvador), and support of the Venezuelan opposition (Guatemala). There is also a strong pro-putchist lobby in the US, headed by John McCain and the Cormac Group, which brought a delegation from the junta to Washington to meet Congressmen and Senators.

 

Lastly there is a military element to this crisis. The Honduran constitution does not allow foreign bases on national soil, and yet the US has had an installation in Soto Cano since the 1950s, headquarters of Joint Task Force-B, which has about 500 men and several aircraft at its disposal. Zelaya, incidentally, had decided to open the airport to civilian air traffic, which would seriously affect the bases military functions. Then there are the large numbers of officers trained in the School of the Americas and its successors, with two of the putschist generals having attended the School.

 

All of this points towards a more active US role in events in Honduras than has been recognised in the English speaking media, and also helps explain the US inaction over the coup. Although there have been references to the coup, and to the ‘restitution of constitutional order’ there has been no official characteristation of the coup as such, as this would necessitate the immediate cutting of military and economic aid to Honduras, and beginning active measures against the putschists.

 

What next?

For the putschists, the future to a large extent depends on the US attitude towards their government. If economic sanctions are applied, it will rapidly force them to step down. They also face significant social mobilisation, which they cannot respond to with overwhelming force, without forcing the US government’s hand. However, without using force, the social mobilisation may well grow and become uncontrollable. None of its neighbours can afford to close the border for long, and the 3 day closure last week reputedly cost the region some 200 million dollars in lost revenue, but how long can the business sectors allied to the coup withstand the economic disruption being caused by road blockades and strikes?

 

Their hope must be that the regime will be able to stagger along until the elections in November. If these pass without major disruption and can be internationally verified somehow, then it is foreseeable that the US and its closest allies would be able to recognise the new government, without seeming to have backed the coup.

 

This outcome will become impossible if Zelaya manages to enter Honduras, and become the focal point for popular resistance to the coup. However, it is yet to be seen whether Zelaya has the courage to do this, considering the personal risk it entails. But a Zelaya in prison, or dead would make it nigh on impossible for the regime to claim any legitimacy, and this is why the actions of the deposed president will to a large extent determine the outcome of the crisis.

 

Crisis in Honduras: a constitutional President overthrown

The overthrow of President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales in Honduras has vividly raised the spectre of a continent plagued by coups de etat and dictatorships once more. The governments of Latin America have been unanimous in their condemnation of the coup, with the OAS, the Rio Group, ALBA, Mercosur and UNASUR calling for the restoration of the constitutionally elected president. The ousted President has also received the support of the Inter American Human Rights Commission, and has been invited to address the UN General Assembly ‘as soon as possible’ by its President, Miguel D’Escoto.

Some Context:

Honduras is a deeply unequal country, the richest 10% of the population take home 43.7% of the National Income, while the bottom 30% take just 7.4%. Just under 40% of the population live in poverty (defined as earning less than double the cost of the basic food basket) and only 4.7% of the population have access to the internet, which might go some way to explaining the vociferous (and largely anglophone) criticisms of President Zelaya on some websites[1].

President Zelaya was taking steps to address this inequality, a process which earned him the enmity of much of Congress. He also pursued a leftist foreign policy, joining the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) and bringing in Cuban doctors to provide healthcare to the poorest sectors of Honduran society. This has undoubtedly caused significant discomfort among some in Washington, especially at a time when much of Latin America has seemed to move beyond the reach of US political power. It also caused outrage among the Honduran elite, who have become increasingly hostile to President Zelaya.

The catalyst for the assault on the Presidential home by the armed forces, and the subsequent detention and expulsion of the President from the country was the vote that was due to take place yesterday (Sunday 28^th June) upon whether a referendum ought to be held, alongside the Presidential election ballot in November 2010, which is when Zelaya’s term officially ends, on the convocation of a constituent assembly, . In other words, the coup was sparked by a non-binding vote which asked the population whether or not they wanted to be asked about a constitutional reform.

The coup was officially called for by the Honduran Supreme Court, although this is highly misleading as the Supreme Court in Honduras has no legislative function, rather being the equivalent of an electoral tribunal which governs the electoral process. It is not the highest instance of the Judicial branch, and it is indicative of the state of much reporting on the crisis that this has as yet not been picked up on.

This is merely the first of several lies and misleading statements being issued by the de facto government. Prime among them being that the coup is in fact a ‘constitutional transfer of power’ as if this is possible when the President’s home is assaulted by the military, the President himself bundled into a military aircraft in his pyjamas and flown into exile, with his Ministers detained and beaten alongside the ambassadors of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Secondly, the illegally installed ‘president’, Roberto Micheletti has declared that “80 or 90 percent of the population support what happened today”, this is highly doubtful given his declaration of a curfew, the ongoing demonstrations, road blockades in the west of the country, and the general strike called for by social organisations and the trade union movement. However, Micheletti has unsurprisingly received expressions of support from the Honduran business sector. It remains to be seen whether the Honduran military will be prepared to shed the blood of civilians to protect an illegal government with no international backing.

Although there is little direct evidence of US interference in the coup, Eva Golinger has indicated certain similarities between the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 and the current situation in Honduras. She points out that a New York Times article states that the US government was working for “several days” with the coup planners in order to 'prevent' the coup. Surely, it would seem naïve not to believe that if the US government had expressed their firm opposition to the coup, it would never have occurred.

Regardless of the extent of US involvement in, or support for the coup, it is undoubtedly a litmus test for President Obama’s policy towards the region. With such universal condemnation of the coup, if the US does not act to support the reinstatement of President Zelaya it will cause profound harm to its relationship with Latin America as a whole, as well as further eroding what little ‘soft power’ the US retains in the region, and send a powerful message about the truthfulness of US rhetoric on liberty, democracy and the right to self determination.

 

---

[1] Figures from 2007, source: ECLAC Annual Report 2008

Snapshots of Obama’s First 100 Days: A French Spring in Washington?

When Barack Obama fielded questions from an adoring French audience in Strasbourg earlier this month, he pleased his hosts by singling out a shining example of European ingenuity in public transportation – the high-speed rail system. The president disclosed his envy for high-speed trains to the audience, and it should not be taken lightly when American presidents get envious. Just two weeks later in Washington Obama actively campaigned for a similar network in the United States and committed $8 billion for good measure.

Riders of the TGV rejoiced at high velocity, no doubt. Six years ago, seldom were heard any encouraging words for all things French. Claims of France’s relegation to the “old Europe” highlighted the opinion that America could replace Paris with Prague and Berlin with Budapest. The election of the progressive Obama has seen off that argument. In a strange twist of fate that would make Donald Rumsfeld smolder, we see a lot more of France in American public policies these days.

Looking at the ambitious agenda laid out in these lively first 100 days, the social democratic tendencies are remarkable. In response to the ongoing financial crisis, the Obama administration is considering deals to secure a large ownership stake in 19 of America’s largest banks. Speculation rose this week that it would seize a majority stake in the nation’s largest automobile manufacturer, General Motors. The stimulus bill passed in February includes $27 billion devoted to transportation infrastructure, in addition to the money set aside for high-speed rail. And then there’s health care component: $634 billion in the administration’s proposed budget to serve as a “down payment” for overhauling the fragmented and ineffective private system into a public-private entity, aimed at driving down costs and providing universal coverage.

You would think a merry band of French social democrats decamped from the rive gauche to infiltrate the Washington area (although surely not on the Potomac’s own left bank, Virginia). To make sure the parallels did not get out of hand, the Brookings Institution convened a panel asking the now mind-blowing question: “Is America the New France?” Senior Fellow and moderator Justin Vaisse quickly pointed out that if the United Sates was indeed turning into France, the journey to New York would take a mere 90 minutes, all citizens would enjoy health coverage, eighty per cent of homes would be powered by nuclear energy, and the food of far higher quality. Clive Crook, the chief Washington columnist with the Financial Times, opined that while the differences are narrowing, Americans and the French still retain vastly different views of the individual’s relationship to the state and of what one should expect of his government. Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston underscored this point with compelling data from a recent OECD survey: French public spending is 15 per cent higher than in the United States. This translates into France boasting half the poverty rate of America and 25 per cent less inequality between the rich and the poor. France also offers twice the amount of benefits to its unemployed, which recently rose to 8.2 per cent.

Overall, the panel concluded, embracing French public policies can yield only limited benefits for Americans. The overriding concern is that the American government, in the absence of a viable and coherent opposition, will exert too much control over its citizens - a decidedly transformative prospect, and not one for the better. All agreed that over-indulging in the American social democratic experiment would be detrimental to the American self-image as independent, self-determined, and hard-working. As for the upgrade in gastronomy, the American appetite will surely abide without any qualms whatsoever.

Obama, Clinton and the Future of US Foreign Policy

Today, one of the most polarizing figures in American politics went before the Senate for confirmation hearings on her suitability to serve as the next US Secretary of State. When Hillary Clinton was nominated back in November many on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged. But perhaps none were more disturbed by her selection than the die-hard, anti-war liberals that helped propel Obama to victory on November 4. While many might see this as a sign of politics as usual, the fact of the matter is Obama made a brilliant decision in choosing Clinton and she will be an excellent Secretary of State – if she is allowed to do her job.

The relationship between the Secretary of State and the President is second to none when it comes to the effective and smooth operation of American foreign policy. A good Secretary of State is one that is said to possess the total trust and confidence of the President. An ineffective Secretary of State is one overshadowed and micromanaged by the President. Rusk was ineffective because Kennedy, a foreign policy neophyte, choose weak man he could control. Kennedy wanted to run foreign policy by himself. Kissinger was effective because Nixon but all his faith in him. Baker did wonders for George H. W. Bush, Powell failed spectacularly because Cheney cut him off at the knees.

Appointing Hillary Clinton Secretary of State sent a message to the world about the importance of shifting American foreign policy in a more liberal internationalist direction. Obama went for political experience. While in the Senate, Clinton stunned experts from fields as diverse as nursing and education, to national security on her grasp of the small details of her diverse policy portfolios. She will bring that same dedication to her job at State. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton brings a level of star power to the post that will strengthen her ability to shed light on important issues by keeping them on the front burner.

But her appointment, and most likely confirmation, are not without risk. Senator Clinton and President -Elect Obama have been rivals. Senator Clinton is seen as pragmatic and reportedly does not carry personal grudges. It is rumored the same is not true for many of her personal staff. When it comes to filling out State Department posts in the next few weeks, the truth will be readily evident. But one should have no qualms about Mrs Clinton getting down to business as part of the team letting sleeping dogs lie.

After all, this is a woman who when elected to the Senate from New York went and worked with people like Lindsay Graham who just a few years earlier had tried to impeach her husband. In no time at all Clinton had Republicans singing her praises as a bipartisan politician. Even Rupert Murdoch reportedly apologized to her during he Senate tenure for the negative press she got in the New York Post while First Lady. If Hillary Clinton is anything at all, she is a can-do operator. But she can only be a doer if the other side plays ball.

Obama is the most popular American politician in living memory, with the star power of Jack Kennedy and the perceived wisdom of Franklin Roosevelt. If such a President backs his Secretary of State wholeheartedly then it would appear that the starts are in alignment. But at the same time, the President is the most visible figure in America. And globally Obama is even more popular. He of course will be giving the orders, but will he let Clinton carry them out in a manner befitting her talents? Even more important, where does Joe Biden, a man widely considered the dean of foreign policy in the Senate fit in to the future running of American foreign policy?

One good option is for Mrs Clinton to do the day-to-day diplomacy, while Mr Biden engages in a radical overhaul of the US national security establishment. Right now, American foreign policy is dead in the water not just because of failed Bush policies. The US Agency for International Development has been gutted, the State Department has been neglected, and the Department of Defense looms large over all aspects of American foreign policy, presenting an overly militarized Uncle Sam to the world. The various organizations do not work well together. Quite frankly, the relationship in conflict zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan has been downright hostile. No wonder US foreign policy is dysfunctional.

With a number of hot button issues such as Iran, Israel-Palestine, the war in Afghanistan, insecurity in Pakistan and a recalcitrant Russia, Mrs Clinton will not have time to run policy while over-seeing a massive overhaul of the State Department, never mind the wider national security architecture. State after all is only one part of a much larger puzzle. Mr Biden, with an excellent knowledge of the type of world American must lead and a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the US national security establishment would be well suited to carry out such a review and start change in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, State and other related cabinet posts. Using such an approach will ensure that policy problems will be well managed, structural issues can be addressed and Mr Obama will have time to worry about a number of other pressing domestic issues.

There is no reason to doubt that Mr Obama and Mr Biden will not back Hillary Clinton 110 percent. But if history is any guide, the going may be more difficult that many expect. Vanity and ego are not strangers to politics. Hopefully, the wisdom that Mr Obama has displayed in is selection of cabinet appointments will carry on into the execution of policy.