So, it looks increasingly inevitable that it will be Obama v McCain. What will that mean for the foreign policy debate? The two men actually actually broadly agree on quite a lot: a preference for multilateralism, closing Guantanamo, a tougher line with Russia and China. But there are also big differences, mainly about the Middle East. The Swoop site summarises the main issues, in an admirably terse fashion.

The two main differences, it seems to me, will be over Iraq and Iran. Obama wants to get out of Iraq fast. McCain is talking about a committment that could last generations. Reality might force both men to be a bit more pragmatic. But - for now - there is a clear difference. Obama is also in favour of unconditional talks with Iran and the countries once known as the “axis of evil”. McCain sounds much more cautious and wants to tighten sanctions against Iran and Syria.

Interestingly, some of the pro-Israel lobby seem to be particularly hostile to Obama. They don’t like his advisers and they don’t like his talk of holding a summit with Muslim nations. Take a look at this vituperative note from Tom Gross.

As the British party led by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, drove through Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, we all noticed a gigantic queue of people, stretching several blocks. What were people lining up for? Apparently, the attraction was a book fair held on the university grounds. If nothing else, that confirmed Bangladesh’s reputation as an exotic place. But also one with powerful links to Britain. There are some 500,000 British-Bangladeshis - just under 1 per cent of the British population.

But Bangladesh scarcely features on the policy map in Britain, let alone in Washington. In some ways that is odd because the foreign-policy problems posed by Bangladesh are very similar to those posed by Pakistan. Both countries are struggling to restore a democracy that has been marred by feudalism and corruption in the past. Both are threatened by radical Islamism. It is true that Pakistan has nukes and a war on its border (and increasingly within its borders); but then Bangladesh has a claim to fame as a country that is directly threatened by climate change.

(more…)

I am now in Kabul, and so are Condi Rice and David Miliband. The "security situation" here is so dicey that the arrival of the American secretary of state and Britain’s foreign secretary could not be advertised in advance. In fact my Foreign Office companions became highly agitated when I mentioned on an "open line" (ie a mobile phone call home) that I was sitting in a motorcade at Kabul airport, with Rice and Miliband in the car ahead, waiting to be swept along to the president’s palace.

The security is so tight that it must be virtually impossible for visiting western dignitaries to form any spontaneous impression of Afghanistan. Rice and Miliband arrived early this morning on an unadvertised flight from London. They were immediately put on a military plane to Kandahar - but did not leave the military base there. Then it was back to Kabul, and a short drive to see President Karzai on a road that had been cleared of all traffic. Then it was time to visit some more troops in a gym at Nato HQ. And that’s it. Condi is off tonight. Miliband is staying for a formal dinner. I’m sure they will have had "frank discussions" with President Karzai. But they must be completely reliant on their diplomats for any impression of how things are going.

(more…)

They say money can’t buy you love. I have always been a bit sceptical about that. But it certainly can’t buy you a sense of rhythm. That much was clear from the McKinsey party in the Hotel Belvedere last night.

McKinsey always have a good bash, largely because they bring back the same New York soul band year after year. I’ve forgotten their name, but they were so good they played at Paul McCartney’s wedding to Heather Mills. You can almost see the Bad Karma hovering over them as they perform. By midnight the dance floor is packed with CEOs and bankers strutting their stuff. It is not a pretty sight. Every now and then, one of the backing singers leaps into the crowd and dances with whichever sweaty hedge-fund manager is closest to hand. I hope they are well paid. (The dancers, not the hedge fund managers.)

Tonight’s hot ticket is the Google party - also at the Belvedere. Before that I am having dinner with Bill Gates, along with some colleagues from the FT. Impressive, I know. But Gates seems to have a thing about British journalists. Earlier in the week I bumped into some friends from The Economist who said casually, "We’re having dinner with Bill Gates, tonight." It gave me great satisfaction to be able to say, "Yeah, we’re having dinner with him on Friday." They were pleasingly crestfallen.

(more…)

My recent article Illiberal capitalism: Russia and China charter their own course has prompted some interesting debate. Robert Kagan, foreign-policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace, and I answered some of readers’ questions in a Q&A on FT.com on Tuesday. All the questions and answers can been seen here.

My recent article Illiberal capitalism: Russia and China charter their own course has prompted some interesting debate. Robert Kagan, foreign-policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and I answered some of readers’ questions in a Q&A on FT.com on Tuesday. All the questions and answers can been seen here.

My recent article Illiberal capitalism: Russia and China charter their own course has prompted some interesting debate. Robert Kagan, foreign-policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace, and I answered some of readers’ questions in a Q&A on FT.com on Tuesday. All the questions and answers can been seen here.

One of the whispered discussions that takes places around the fringes of the American election is whether somebody might try and shoot one of the candidates - in particular, Barack Obama.

But although plenty of people talk about the risk of assassination, security around the candidates remains startlingly lax. Last Saturday I went to an Obama rally at a high school in New Hampshire. I got lost on the motorway, so I was a bit late. I rushed up to an entrance marked press and waved my press card. It’s a real press card, as it happens - but I could quite easily have bought it on the internet. I was waved into the rally. Nobody checked my bag. Within a couple of minutes I was standing ten yards from Obama. Apparently he does have secret service protection. But I suspect they cannot do very much, given the hectic nature of his schedule and the openness of his meetings.

(more…)

Is Hillary doomed? You might begin to wonder, from some of the recent coverage of her campaign - featuring reports of bad opinion polls, demoralised staff and a panicky candidate. Bill’s recent description of his wife as a "world-class genius" is touchingly inarticulate - but also sounds a little desperate.

Certainly the momentum is with Obama at the moment. He has sneaked ahead of Senator Clinton in the opinion polls for the Iowa caucus on January 3rd. And a USA today poll, out today, has Obama and Clinton neck-and-neck in New Hampshire. Just a month ago, she had a double digit lead in New Hampshire. If Obama wins the first two contests, then Hillary’s national lead might begin to evaoprate as the candidates head for the most populous "delegate-rich" states.

But let’s not get carried away. You can lose New Hampshire and still win the nomination, if you have the strongest national campaign - as George W.Bush showed. A national poll on December 19th had Hillary well out in front among Democrats in the country as a whole. A friend who is close to the campaign says that the American press are getting intoxicated by the Obama boomlet, because it makes the story more exciting. Hillary has no reason to panic. He adds that - "The drugs smear against Obama is working." What drugs smear, you ask? I suggest you enter the words Obama and cocaine into Google.

(more…)

As well as all the numerous and dauntingly learned contributions on American empire, provoked by my post earlier this week, various people have asked me - "What have you got against Bono?"

This is a tricky question for two reasons. First, if I start explaining in too much detail, I will use all the material I am planning to save up for my column. (This is an inherent problem with this "crowdsourcing" exercise, that I’ll have to think my way around.) The second reason is even less creditable. Thinking about it, my objections to Bono are largely incoherent, and possibly indefensible.

(more…)