Obama tells Medvedev He'll Be More "Flexible" On Missile Defence, After Elections

[Exarch]

from Reuters:

Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election

SEOUL | Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:06pm EDT
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama's "reset" in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama's Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seized on Obama's comment, calling it "alarming and troubling."

"This is no time for our president to be pulling his punches with the American people," Romney said in a campaign speech in San Diego.

As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time - "particularly with missile defense" - until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.

"I understand your message about space," replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protégé and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.

The United States and NATO have offered Russia a role in the project to create an anti-ballistic shield which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain.

But Moscow says it fears the system could weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent.

It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia's nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system and joint control of how it is used.

The White House, initially caught off-guard by questions about the leaders' exchange, later released a statement recommitting to implementing missile defense "which we've repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia" but also acknowledging election-year obstacles on the issue.

"Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.

"Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward," he said.

(Reporting By Matt Spetalnick in Seoul and Steve Holland in San Diego; Editing by Robert Birsel and David Brunnstrom)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82P0JI20120326


so is this how democracy works in the States, these days? connive to the public about your future plans until after elections? be vocally dishonest to the ppl you're supposed to be accountable to, for the sake of your political career?

Naturally, the Republicans are having a field day with this, not that they're any different.

[Sphere]

Maybe I missed something, but where exactly is the duplicity? Where is the "dishonesty" in what Obama said?

It is well known that the US and Russia are negotiating on both an arms treaty and Russia's possible involvement on a European missile defense system. It is also well known that action on domestic and international policy basically goes on hold during the US presidential campaign.

There is no shortage of irony in that Obama has taken quite a bit of political heat for negotiating with the Russians on this issue, and now it is some Earth shattering revelation that ... gasp... he intends to negotiate with the Russians! I mean really, WTF do you want exactly?

[Exarch]

Maybe I missed something, but where exactly is the duplicity?

it's pretty self evident;
but
has it truly come to this? where you readily accept the inherent corruption of your elected officials? you accept that your Presidential candidate is going to lie to you/obfuscate intention in order to gain your vote?

[Matthias]

it's pretty self evident;
but
has it truly come to this? where you readily accept the inherent corruption of your elected officials? you accept that your Presidential candidate is going to lie to you/obfuscate intention in order to gain your vote?

It's rather a fact. It will be politically easier for Obama to negotiate after election.

The way our system is set up, that's the way it is. That's not corruption.

As for the obfustication, that happens in every political speech practically, since the beginning of time. Our political system, the way it is set up, encourages obfustication and outright ignoring inconvenient questions, and rewards politicians for it.

When the President negotiates with foriegn leaders, he isn't going to just lay out what he only lets the American people know.

Your overreaction is pretty funny though. "Has it truly come to this?" Are you that naive?

[alhoon]

it's pretty self evident;
but
has it truly come to this? where you readily accept the inherent corruption of your elected officials? you accept that your Presidential candidate is going to lie to you/obfuscate intention in order to gain your vote?

No, he didn't. Obama has said more or less he wants such a deal on nukes. It's nothing new nor it has been hidden from the public. He just infromed Russia that after he's re-elected he will go on with the plans.

As many in the thread said already, you're make a whole deal out of nothing serious.

[Sphere]

it's pretty self evident;
but
has it truly come to this? where you readily accept the inherent corruption of your elected officials? you accept that your Presidential candidate is going to lie to you/obfuscate intention in order to gain your vote?

Maybe it is just my pea sized brain, but it is not self evident to me. It would help me out if you could clearly show his duplicity.

I have no problem hammering Obama when it comes to his Civil Liberty's record, in that area what he says are his principles and what his administration carries out are miles apart. I don't see any of that here.

[YukonTrooper]

Political reality (for the vast majority of politicians anyways). It still makes you cringe though. Ben Hecht put it succinctly when talking about politicians in Perfidy:

He knows what is best for the people—his continuation in power. He knows what is right—the ruses and shenanigans that keep him in power. And he knows what is wrong—anything that endangers his power.

[frozenprince]

Newswire: Politician speaks truth of the current political system. More at 11

[Dr Zoidberg]

Newswire: Politician speaks truth of the current political system. More at 11

Now that would be worthy of a special report.

[Armenum]

I doubt there will be much warm relations if a Republican President is elected and you have Putin on the other end. That being said, Russia and US really can't afford to become adversaries like the Cold War and should try to work as much as they can together and find common ground. While they are rivals and always will be, there's more pertinent issues for the both of them. And what Obama said is not surprising. All candidates during election season want to appear 'tough'.

[Kitsunegari]

The "missile shield" is so obviously a part of the neocon strategy of encircling and provoking Russia. As much as a i dislike Obama i hope that he intends to shelve it and is giving lip service now to avoid a backlash come November.

[Armenum]

The "missile shield" is so obviously a part of the neocon strategy of encircling and provoking Russia. As much as a i dislike Obama i hope that he intends to shelve it and is giving lip service now to avoid a backlash come November.

It's such an idiotic strategy. Enough people are provoked already, let alone provoking Russia, it's like they think everything is a video game...

[Squiggle]

The "missile shield" is so obviously a part of the neocon strategy of encircling and provoking Russia. As much as a i dislike Obama i hope that he intends to shelve it and is giving lip service now to avoid a backlash come November.

Or maybe its to protect our allies from rogue states like IRAN? We dont need to provoke Russia in order to make them our enemies, they supply literally all of our enemies with wepons. In that regard, Obama is bordering the line of treason. If there is any enemy of the United States, its Russia, and hes aiding them.

[justicar5]

Or maybe its to protect our allies from rogue states like IRAN? We dont need to provoke Russia in order to make them our enemies, they supply literally all of our enemies with wepons. In that regard, Obama is bordering the line of treason. If there is any enemy of the United States, its Russia, and hes aiding them.

So negotiation is treason now? When are you going to hang Oliver North for negotiating with terrorists then?

Also would you be fine with a Russian 'missile shield' being built in say Cuba and Venezuela? If not why not?

[kellakk]

I'm confuse. What's wrong with saying this? He's speaking a truth, or at least something he believes. What's the problem with this? From my limited knowledge, it seems that, assuming Obama wins the presidential election, he will have more freedom to discuss this topic. Or am I wrong somehow? Please enlighten me.

[Sidmen]

I'm confuse. What's wrong with saying this? He's speaking a truth, or at least something he believes. What's the problem with this? From my limited knowledge, it seems that, assuming Obama wins the presidential election, he will have more freedom to discuss this topic. Or am I wrong somehow? Please enlighten me.

By essentially saying "we'll talk about it later" *wink* *wink*, Obama is at once putting the Russian government at ease, and not giving his opponents something to yell about ("Obama is weak on defense!", "Obama bows to Russian pressure, again making us look weak!", etc.).

To the common man this seems wrong because "they" think Obama isn't showing his true colors. That he intends to stop building the Missile shield, but won't actually come out and say it - because he fears the public being angry with him. That he is just waiting until he is voted in again to do it, essentially saying "Tough cookies public, I'm the boss for another 4 years and there ain't nuthin you can do about it!".

The fact that the politics of this country FORCE him to make stupid decisions, and put off decisions until later, to make "the public" happy doesn't seem to cross their minds.

[kellakk]

You can never make the public happy for very long. Especially in a huge and diverse nation like the U.S. The Founders were definitely right in trying their hardest to prevent majority rule from taking hold.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'd say the importance of that footage is how in sync they are. Obama is simply stating a fact we hear whenever there is an election. I don't really understand why it's such a big deal.

[Inconsistent]

I'm not really sure why this is a big deal, bull stories like this aren't helping political transparency and are only contributing to the no-risk way in which politicians talk and the common man is forced to decipher.

[Equilibrius]

So basically they need to be better at covering up what they are doing behind the scenes? It's hilarious, diplomacy is no different than the 19th century, it's just ten times more personal between the leaders.