Exclusive: Barack Obama is 'aloof' says British ambassador to US-(Leaked Diplomatic Memo!)

Barack Obama is a "decidedly liberal" senator "who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions", according to a frank verdict delivered to Gordon Brown by the British ambassador to the United States.

Sir Nigel Sheinwald, ambassador in Washington since last year, delivered his unvarnished assessment of the White House front runner in a seven-page letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, just before the Democratic nominee's visit to Downing Street just over two months ago.

The candid letter, marked as containing "sensitive judgements" and requesting officials to "protect the contents carefully" gives a remarkable insight into how the Foreign Office views the political phenomenon who stunned Mr Brown's inner circle by defeating their favourite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.

Although the picture Sir Nigel paints is a highly complimentary one - Mr Obama's speeches are "elegant" and "mesmerising", he is "highly intelligent" and has "star quality" - he also judges that his "policies are still evolving" and that if elected he will "have less of a track record than any recent president".

The letter's contents suggest that Mr Brown could initially find it difficult to deal with a President Obama because he remains a largely unknown quantity who "resists pigeon-holing" and the leak is likely to complicate relations.

Here it is, in case it vanishes from that site:

The following is the full text of a July 2008 letter sent by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, British ambassador to the United States, to Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, shortly before the visit of Senator Barack Obama, then the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to London.

My news story about the leaked document is here.

BARACK OBAMA

This letter contains sensitive judgements. Please limit copying, and protect the contents carefully.

1. Ahead of Senator Obama’s visit to London next week, I thought it would be useful to give you a snapshot of his personality, politics and emerging policies.

Background and Personality

2. The key themes which are important in understanding Obama’s political makeup are the following:

- His struggle to understand his racial identity. His first book “Dreams from My Father” (1995) traces this struggle through Hawaii, New York, Chicago and Kenya. Raised by his white Kansas-born mother and her parents after his Kenyan father left, Obama made a conscious decision in the 1980s to choose his African-American identity – he worked as a community organiser in the poorest areas of Chicago, and went on to travel to Kenya to learn about his father. His decision after Harvard Law School to settle back in Chicago led to growing integration into the city’s black middle class culture and provided him with the political laboratory from which his career was launched;

- His personal makeup drives his view of politics. Obama talks of wanting to reach out to all Americans (“no red states or blue states, only the United States”). “I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story which has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many we are truly one.” The race issue is present in the campaign – the debate continues to rage over how much. Obama wanted to avoid it as much as possible until the Reverend Wright videos forced him to make his elegant speech on race in March and then, when this was clearly not enough for the latest Wright outburst, to disown him completely and leave his church;

- Star quality. Obama has always had it, at least since his arrival at Harvard. A friend in the progressive Chicago establishment said, “I honestly don’t remember what it was about him, but I was absolutely blown away. I said to several people that this guy, who is now 30 years old, is some day going to be President. He will be our first black President”. That was in the 1990s. His rise has been meteoric. He first came to the notice of the national political establishment when he won the Illinois Democratic primary for the US Senate in early 2004. But it was his mesmerising speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston which propelled him to stardom, at a low point for his party. He is the only black member of the Senate. He is already the most successful black elected politician in American history, to the discomfort of Jesse Jackson and others;

- The promise of post-partisanship. Throughout his career, from the time he won over the conservative board of the Harvard Law Review to today, Obama has succeeded in crossing traditional boundaries, and making a virtue of it. His political personality is much more difficult to define than McCain’s. His campaign has the features of a movement, but he has himself said that “without organisation, without policy, without plans”, movements will dissipate. He uses Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign as his example. More broadly, he is a mixture of idealism and progressive politics on the one hand and pragmatism and disciplined organization on the other. He resists pigeon-holing. People disagree about how sincere his post-partisanship is, and how successful his attempts to reach across the aisle would be, given his mixed record in the Senate;

- Obama is highly intelligent. Not just savvy – which most people at this level of American politics have to be. But intellectually smart; cerebral. His manner is frequently interrogative. He is a quick learner. He has the confidence to surround himself with bright people, and is said to listen carefully to and weight thir views. This can have its downsides – he can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons. He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments about small-town Pennsylvanians “clinging” to guns and religion. The charge of elitism leveled by both Clinton and McCain was rich coming from them, but not entirely unfair. Despite his blue-collar upbringing. Obama does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset;

- He is a supreme organiser and networker. Obama has 20 years’ experience of organising from the grassroots up. He has surrounded himself with experienced, creative campaign organisers, particularly David Axelrod and David Plouffe. He has broken all the financial records, especially for conations via the internet and from younger people. His campaign has been a brilliant combination of the strategic and emotional on the one hand (“change you can believe in”) and state-by-state organisation on the other. The latter, as much as the former, beat Hillary Clinton; and that remains in place against McCain;

- He is tough and competitive. That is of course the Chicago school. You don’t beat Clinton without being resilient (but, like her, his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates). He loves basketball and poker. He demands loyalty.

- Ambition. Of course. He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency. He plans each move carefully, and incrementally. The 1995 book was a very clever platform.

- Obama is cool. He looks cool, tall, slim. He is temperamentally cool (by any standards, not just in comparison with the more impetuous McCain). And maybe aloof, insensitive – see above. Friends like Tom Daschle told me that he demands calm and “no dramas” from those around him. That will, I think, be an important criterion for his choice of running mate;

- Luck. Obama has had his fair share, but also made his own. He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama’s threat.

Policies

3. Obama’s politics and policies are still evolving. His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office. In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005. His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his Presidential ambitions. Obama’s positions and policies emerging from the campaign are a better guide to a future Presidency, but “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) does of course set out the broad themes. If elected, Obama would have less of a track record than any recent President. Carter would be the nearest, but even he had four years as a Governor.

Domestic Policy

4. Since clinching the nomination in June, Obama (as is traditional at this stage) has tacked towards the centre. He has seemed to move on foreign policy (see below), intelligence (his decision to vote for the compromise legislation on interception, having initially threatened to filibuster), gun control (after the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment), the death penalty (after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana capital law for child rape) and more moderate comments on trade (again, see below). Most of these changes are not outright “flip-flops” but they do reflect a decision not to leave himself vulnerable to attacks from the right. They unsettle some Democrats.

5. Obama’s policies will continue to evolve during the campaign. Some of his positions on domestic policy are highly detailed, even as on others (such as energy policy) he is less specific in some areas than McCain. We have sent back detailed reports on Obama’s economic policy (in June) and trade policy (this week), so I will avoid detail here. The key overall domestic theme is Obama’s view that US economic policy, particularly during the Bush Administration, has benefited the few, not the many. He is concerned about the stagnation of real median wages while the costs of food, healthcare, education, pensions and fuel have soared. He talks of restoring the American dream to Middle America.

6. President Obama would reverse many of Bush’s economic policies. He wants to cut taxes on the middle-classes but would increase taxes on the rich. Instead of rolling back the state, he stresses the enabling role that government can play in improving the economy. He complains that outdated infrastructure, low levels of education, and a failing social safety net are hampering the economy’s ability to compete in a globalised world. He would invest heavily in all three.

7. Obama’s flagship economic policy is a plan for universal healthcare. This would build on the current employer-based system to expand cover. It would not create a single national health service, but would seek to fill the gaps in the current system. Help would be provided for those too poor to buy insurance. The self-employed and small employers would be able to use a government-administered scheme. Unsurprisingly, there is a lively debate about how much all this would cost.

8. As our parallel report makes clear, Obama’s position on trade is shifting. One senses three basic factors at work: an instinctive belief in the economic opportunities of free trade; an equally instinctive sympathy for those losing their jobs; and lastly a political calculation about handling the various special interest groups, particularly those (eg the unions) active during the primary campaign.

9. In recent weeks, Obama has repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade. But his advisers are adamant that he does intend to shift towards a “smarter” approach to trade and globalisation. The exact meaning of this is unclear, but it could mean relieving popular economic anxieties through measures such as healthcare, retraining and trade adjustment assistance before pursuing a broadly liberal trade agenda. Or it could mean doing that and pursuing a more “balanced” trade policy, with greater commitments to labour and environmental standards. The next (probably more protectionist) Congress will be a big factor. The choice for Obama looks like being, in practice, in the middle of the Democratic spectrum, not at the extremes – ie no return to Clinton liberalism but not the trades union agenda either. But there are few domestic political drivers for Obama to engage early on the DDA.

10. Obama has a progressive position on climate change and supports an economy-wide cap-and-trade system with permits being mainly auctioned. He and his campaign know that this will be an international priority in 2009, because of Copenhagen, but it is not clear how far an Obama Administration would try or be able to get with domestic leglislation early in his term. Other domestic priorities would probably take precedence eg healthcare and tax, possibly housing and energy. Obama is not a nuclear power enthusiast, and opposes drilling off the coast of the US. We will be writing a more detailed report on the two candidates’ environmental policies later this month.

11. Obama has a mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials. His director of economic policy, Jason Furman, comes fresh from a centrist Washington think tank. His chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, was plucked from relative obscurity in the University of Chicago by Obama (mainly because Clinton had sewn up the Democratic establishment). These two (and his other advisers) approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions. They have drawn on a range of new thinking (eg behavioural economics) and are willing to challenge traditional Democrat ways of thinking. For example, they emphasise the need for government to be easy to use (so-called iPod government) and to help people to make the right decisions (automatic opt-in pensions, easy-to-compete tax returns). They are less keen on mandates and top-down regulation.

Foreign policy and national security

12. Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to. On the other hand, he has – as he stresses on the campaign trail – a uniquely internationalist background – Kenyan father, childhood in Indonesia, Muslim forbears. One of his biggest assets in the primary campaign was his decision to oppose the Iraq war from the start, unlike most of the other Democratic candidates.

13. As with McCain, there are some potential conflicts within his campaign team. On McCain’s side, there are obvious tensions between the realists and the neocons, In the Obama camp there is less overt tension, but a potential fault line between progressives like Tom Daschle, Susan Rice and Samantha Power on the one hand and the more pragmatic advisers on the other (Nunn, Hamilton, Danzig, Brzezinski). Tony Lake hovers between the two.

14. My judgement is that – so far – Obama approaches these issues essentially pragmatically, case-by-case. He has adopted a balanced approach to the big security issues, taking a robust position after 9/11, but nevertheless opposing the Iraq expedition; supporting a broader-based US policy towards Pakistan, but also the right to initiate unilateral US strikes; willing directly to criticise Russia and China, but avoiding talk of boycotts. I would expect this pragmatic realism to continue, not least because he needs to show that he has the depth, authority and judgement for the Presidency. These are qualities that the McCain campaign will test, given his relative inexperience compared to their candidate.

15. Obama has several overarching international themes:

- the need to restore US leadership This gets a strong response from campaign audiences. He stresses his multilateralist credentials, his commitment to Nato and transatlantic partnership, and his support for strong international institutions (the campaign are sympathetic to the Prime Minister’s institutional reform ideas, but have focused little on them so far). Obama has said that he admires Bush Senior, JFK and even Reagan – this is no doubt meant to show a sort of “bipartisan realism”;

- the need for engagement with other governments, friendly or not. He talks about “tough-minded diplomacy backed by the whole range of instruments of American power – political, economic and military.” Under fire from McCain, he has qualified his earlier position that he would be prepared to meet Ahmadinejad and other “rogue leaders”, saying that any such meeting would need to be prepared carefully by officials. But defeault engagement rather than default isolation would be a significant shift compared with Bush, and with a prospective McCain Administration; and,

- a more nuanced approach on terrorism. This will need to be fleshed out, but Obama talks about a policy which “draws on the full range of American power, not just our military might…In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists’ prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy...To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity — access to education and health care, trade and investment”. He talks a lot about winning the battle of ideas.

16. Obama’s big foreign policy/national security point, reiterated in his speech on 15 July, is that Bush’s Iraq adventure obscured the real tghreat from Afghanistan/Pakistan, which would be his No. 1 priority. He is strongly committed to doing more “militarily, economically and politically” in both countries, which he sees as the central front in the struggle against AQ. He promises two more combat brigades to Afghanistan after recuperation from Iraq, and $1 billion a year more in aid. He would ask the European NATO countries to do more. On Pakistan, Obama supports Biden’s proposal that the US should do more economic aid and institution-building, as well as traditional military assistance; in his speech he said he would triple non-military aid to Pakistan and make military aid more contingent on Palistani commitment on CT. he reserves the right to unilateral US strikes (McCain criticises this as bluster; Obama responds that he is simply articulating every Administration’s position). Beyond that there is a good deal of fleshing out needed to make Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan policy a reality.

17. Iraq will remain one of the major fault lines with McCain. Obama continues to argue that his decision to oppose the war from the outset was evidence of his sound judgement on national security issues. His pledge to end the war and withdraw all US combat forces within 16 months of taking office has proved popular in the Democratic primary. During the campaign itself he has come in for criticism for not acknowledging the success of the surge. He himself fuelled speculation that he was going to use his trip to Iraq to reposition himself when he said a fortnight ago that he would continue to refine his policy, promoting further accusations of flip flopping.

18. In his speech this week, Obama sought to address this, reiterating his commitment to end the war and withdrawn US combat forces within 16 months of taking office. In reality, his position that we need to be ‘as careful getting out as we were careless getting in”, leaves him some wriggle room. Even after his initial draw-down, he would leave behind a (large) residual force to target any remains of Al-Qaeda, protect US forces and diplomats and train and support Iraqi Security Forces. In practice, the positions of Bush, McCain and Obama are now starting to converge. Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama’s likely approach. Obama’s ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking.

19. Iraq remains difficult for Obama politically. Opinion polls consistently show that McCain polls as well, if not better than, Obama on Iraq, an area of policy where Obama would hope to score better given the unpopularity of the war. This reflects the success of the surge and American dislike of “defeat”.

20. Given that Iran is likely to be a major issue in real world politics this autumn, it is bound to continue to feature prominently in the campaign. Obama favours a twin track strategy of increased pressure, including tougher international sanctions, but also direct US engagement, which he hopes to trade for meaningful European, Russian and Chinese sanctions if Iran does not respond. Tony Lake made this clear in a recent interview in the Financial Times. During his European tour, Obama wants there to be no hint of difference between his own and the European approach on Iran – this is “a real red flag” according to one forign policy adviser. The next US President will face some difficult timing issues, with the Iranian Presidential election only a few months after his inauguration. If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for “unconditional” dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the UNSC’s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin. Moves by the Bush Administration, however, may mean that these distinctions have blurred by January 2009.

21. On other subjects:

- the MEPP is unlikely to be a top priority for Obama, but he would pursue it reasonably vigorously, and with Clinton-style diplomacy, i.e. an envoy, engagement with Syria, and balanced pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians. Obama’s early position on Iran and his links with Reverend Wright and others raised some doubts about him in the American jewish community, although his speech to AIPAC did much to reassure;

- Russia: I would expect continuity with Bush’s approach. Some (though not all) of his advisers think Obama can trade deployment of BMD in Europe for meaningful Russian cooperation on Iran sanctions;

- China: he would continue, broadly, the “responsible stakeholder” approach;

- Non-Proliferation/Disarmament: he was an early supporter of the Kissinger/Nunn initiative, a strong supporter of the NPT and co-sponsored with Republican Dick Lugar legislation to secure loose nuclear materials. Now McCain has also embraced most of the Gang of Four agenda, there is little to differentiate the candidates, other than the Democrats’ general scepticism about BMD;

- Terrorism/Guantanamo: like McCain, Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo, and greater use of soft power, but couple with continued use of kinetic action where necessary;

- Africa/MDGs; his heart and mind tell him he should do more. He is committed to doubling the US aid budget by 2012, and says he will “capitalise a $2 billion Global Education Budget” to address the global education deficit. But he won’t want to be pigeon-holed as too focused on Africa; and this has not – despite Susan Rice’s influence – come through as a major campaign theme.

(document ends)

Glossary

AQ – Al Qaeda

BMD – Ballistic Missile Defence

CT – Counter-terrorism

DDA – Doha Development Agenda

MDGs – Millenium Development Goals

MEPP – Middle East peace Plan

NPT – Non-Proliferation Treaty

UNSC – United Nations Security Council

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.