07-28-2008

TRIP SHOWED AMERICANS 'I CAN FUNCTION ON GLOBAL STAGE'

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency, sat down with Chicago Tribune correspondent Mike Dorning after his nine-day international tour. He spoke about how an Obama presidency could change America's image abroad, speculated on how the trip will play out politically at home and defended himself against criticism the international tour was presumptuous.

By Barack Obama

A: I visualized myself in the role before the trip. I think what the trip hopefully allowed the American people to do is visualize me doing it as well.

Q: Can you change the way America is viewed?

A: Yes.

Q: How quickly?

A: I don't think I can transform it completely. I don't think that, suddenly, just because I'm president, German and French citizens are eager to send their troops off to war. . . . But I do think that both in terms of substance and tone I can project an American foreign policy that listens . . . .

Q: Did you pick up hostility to the U.S. in this trip?

A: I don't think there's hostility towards America. I think there is frustration over certain American policy choices.

Q: Was this trip presumptuous?

A: No, look, look, after John McCain won the nomination, he met with these same world leaders, took these same trips, and for good measure went to Canada, Mexico and Colombia, places all of which he spoke and tried to project his foreign policy. Nobody accused him of being presumptuous. I don't think it's presumptuous.

Q: What was the political value of the trip?

A: I don't think that short term it was a useful political advantage. You know, I think people (in America) right now are worried about gas prices. They're worried about the rising costs of groceries. So I think that spending a week overseas exacts a price politically. But what I do think is that over the long term a trip like this will perhaps give some voters more confidence when they go to the polls in November that I can function effectively on the global stage.

Q: Optimistic rhetoric aside, what do we do in Afghanistan if the Europeans don't commit more troops?

A: You know, we will do what we need to do with a combination of our troops, NATO troops, coordinating them more effectively, as well as working more effectively in training and building up an Afghan army and dealing more effectively with Pakistan so that they are cooperating in shutting down these terrorist safe havens that have been established in the border regions of Pakistan.

Q: Can you make progress without more European troops?

A: Let's take the couple thousand that have already been committed first. Let's send two brigades, an additional 7,000 or so (U.S. soldiers), that we've committed. Let's get the Afghan government to work more effectively and deal with corruption, the poppy trade. And let's get Pakistan better aligned with our goals there. Let's do those things and see what kind of progress we can make.

Q: What happens if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran after the election but before the inauguration? Should the president-elect have a role in a decision like that?

A: I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. . . . I will tell you that Iran should not wait for the next administration to get serious about negotiating with the international community.

Q: And Hamas?

A: I continue to believe we should not negotiate directly with an organization that is ... not a recognized state government, that hasn't acknowledged Israel and that practices terrorism.

Q: Israel has negotiated with Hamas.

A: Well, I think Israel has to make some heart-wrenching, difficult decisions, and I respect them for making those decisions. I think that we've got to send a clear message that as we work in the region that we will talk to all comers, but if it's a non-state actor then there's got to be some utility or expectation of progress. I don't see that with Hamas at this point. 

(C) CHICAGO TRIBUNE
DISTRIBUTED BY GLOBAL VIEWPOINT/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES