It’s been over a month now and the chattering classes are still
engrossed in the conflict between Barack Obama and Benjamin
Netanyahu. There was no question that the joint press conference
held after their White House meeting showed two men barely
disguising their personal dislike for each other. That sort of
personalization of political affairs is supposed to be beneath the
level of professionalism expected to guide such appearances.
Apparently it wasn’t in this case.
While the Bibi/Barack animosity currently is first in the list
of important political personality conflicts, Obama is not very
high in Vladimir Putin’s BFF calculations. In a way, the Israeli
and Russian prime ministers share the same disdain for the U.S.
president. Neither of them view Obama as a serious and experienced
leader. Both Netanyahu and Putin have extensive professional
political backgrounds as well as former lives in military special
operations (Netanyahu) and intelligence (Putin). Both consider
themselves warriors. Obama is not a member of their club and thus
does not have their respect. Obama’s preferred opposite number is
Dimitry Medvedev, a trained lawyer, academically oriented and an
instinctive negotiator.
Another example of influential personality conflict has existed
between the privileged Hamid Karzai and the top American
representatives. Karzai is a rich, well-traveled, multi-lingual
sophisticate. Some might question the latter characteristic, but
that’s how he views himself. The American ambassador, Karl
Eikenberry, formerly the military commander in Afghanistan, is
finally leaving that country with a record of having had virtually
no personal relations with President Karzai other than repeated
disagreements. In the end it has been reported that the animosity
was so great the two men barely spoke to each other.
The late Richard Holbrooke, who certainly was as sophisticated
as Karzai, also flunked the Karzai social test.
So much for US/Afghan diplomatic relations. The fact that President
Obama lacked respect for Karzai – and it became known — did not
help. Only smooth-as-silk Dave Petraeus and successful
counter-insurgent Stan McChrystal have had the Afghan president’s
respect. The new American ambassador, Ryan Crocker of Iraq War
fame, is hoped to be able to carry the right magic.
The Americans aren’t the only ones plagued by political
personality disorders. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran,
apparently has severely blotted his copy book — as the British
would say — in respect to his relations with the Supreme Leader,
Ayatiollah Ali Khamenei. Poor old Mahmoud began to think he
actually was the man in charge in Teheran. As an example to all
around him regarding who was boss, he dumped the intelligence
minister. He had to reverse himself on that little faux
pas, but went ahead later in May of this year to fire the oil
minister and took over the job himself.
Whatever gave Mahmoud the idea that he could effectively ignore
the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader in this manner is
beyond understanding. They struck back at Ahmadinejad’s effrontery
and said his action was illegal and implied even possible
criminality. Deaf, dumb and blind the Iranian president is not, so
what perverse logic was in play in this affair?
The German newspapers and the influential magazine, Der
Spiegel have made a great deal out of the refusal of
Chancellor Angela Merkel to acquiesce to the requests of her “good
friend” Barack Obama to have Germany share the military and
financial burden of the UN-approved action against Qaddafi’s Libya.
The real story, however, is the personal and political breakdown
between Angela and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. This was
exactly the kind of joint military operation the two leaders of the
EU had often spoken about. When Nicolas asked her to dance, Angela
declined to do the Anglo-French waltz.
Now the buzz about Europe is that “Kaiserin” Angela is more than
a little miffed at Nicky for taking for granted dear old
Deutschland — and her. She had already made clear that
she and Germany did not care for this military business anymore.
They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Afghanistan, and
Sarkozy obviously ignored that. Just a lovers’ quarrel? Not
according to those who know, say the Euro tabloids.
So there it goes: Fidel loves Hugo Chavez, but brother Raul is
worried over Hugo’s broader ambitions as Latin America’s socialist
revolutionary leader. Venezuela’s provision of 100,000 bpd of
cut-rate oil to Havana has softened Raul’s personal attitude.
Bashar al-Assad thought his mild manner and British wife would be
all that was needed to keep the Brits on his side. Wrong! David
Cameron thought his newly-developed friendship with Barack Obama
would give him some back-up in warding off Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao’s dressing-down over Cameron’s forthright stand on Beijing’s
human rights record. It didn’t happen. So much for friends when you
need them on that issue.
There are of course dozens more instances where politics and
personalities influence international events. We haven’t even begun
to touch on the sexual misbehaviors such as Dominique
Strauss-Kahn’s recent interlude with the hotel maid. That lost him
his IMF job and possibly the French presidency. Remember Lady
Edwina Mountbatten’s 1947 dalliance with Pandit Nehru? There’s
still controversy over that matter in Britain and India
today.
