Oil-spill anger unlikey to hurt US/UK ties
BY ALICE RITCHIE:
LONDON, England (AFP) — US anger at oil giant BP is clouding ties with Britain's new Government only weeks after it took office, but poses little long-term threat to the 'special relationship', analysts say.
US President Barack Obama has ramped up the pressure on BP over the disaster, summoning chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to Washington, criticising chief executive Tony Hayward and firing a warning over shareholder payouts.
BP's share price tanked last week under the strain and business leaders and politicians in London expressed concern about the impact on British pension funds that invest in BP as well as any backlash against other British firms.
"There is also growing concern that the president's angry rhetoric is going over the top and risks dividing the United States and the United Kingdom," former Conservative foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind wrote in The Times.
Newspapers here demanded Prime Minister David Cameron stand up to Obama when the two leaders were scheduled to speak yesterday ahead of England's World Cup opener against the USA — which could itself strain ties further.
However, the US State Department and Cameron's Government played down suggestions of a rift, while analysts say the allies' primary concern remains their joint efforts in Afghanistan and over Iran's nuclear programme.
Much hailed in the British press, the historic "special relationship" with the United States has cooled since the close personal ties forged between ex-British premier Tony Blair and former US president George W Bush.
The Obama administration has stressed its close relations with a number of foreign nations, while Cameron's Government promised a close but "frank" relationship with Washington when it took office last month.
"This crisis has heightened that sense of distance, but I don't think in the end it'll have long-term damaging consequences," said Michael Cox, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE).
He acknowledged the pressure on BP was taking on a patriotic bent, noting the "peculiar" use of BP's old name, "British Petroleum", by the White House.
BP is far from a British firm any more — it employs 22,000 people in the United States and only 10,000 in Britain, while six of its directors are American and six British.
But Cox noted that Obama was under "a huge amount of domestic pressure" and "it's easier to direct attention to an apparently foreign company".
Amid fears of what BP will have to pay out for the oil-spill, US officials are looking to suspend shareholder dividends until compensation is paid.
But analysts at investment bank UBS say it is Obama's pressure as much as any economic fall-out from the spill that caused the share price to collapse last week.
"While progress on dealing with the spill continues, the share price falls now appear to reflect continued pressure from President Obama's administration, much of which appears to be politically motivated," a briefing note said.
Cameron's announcement Thursday that he would raise the issue with Obama "provides some (limited) support for BP", albeit "quite late in the day".
However, Cox suggested that the British premier would want to keep the issue "pretty down on the agenda" in his call with Obama, saying: "There are more important things" such as the Iranian nuclear crisis and Afghanistan.
Scott Lucas, Professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham, agreed and said he believed the whole diplomatic spat was more in the heads of British newspaper editors than policymakers.
"There is animosity against BP's leadership, there's no doubt about that, because they didn't handle the situation well. But that animosity doesn't translate into a wider issue," he said.
British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also warned that bringing politics into the fray would not help the clean-up.
"I don't frankly think we will reach a solution to stopping the release of oil into the ocean any quicker by allowing this to spiral into a tit-for-tat political diplomatic spat," he said during a trip to Madrid Friday.
June 13, 2010
jamaicaobserver
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label BP oil spill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BP oil spill. Show all posts
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
BP oil spill spill turns media swooning over Obama toxic
BP spill turns media swooning over Obama toxic
By Anthony L. Hall:
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama always seemed indifferent to media pundits swooning over him. But instead of acting scorned, they made a virtue of this diss by propagating a narrative about him as a preternaturally cool, intellectual dude who never gets fazed by anything: remember “no drama Obama”?
Well, that was then. Because these same pundits are now lashing out at him with a vengeance that would make even a woman scorned cringe with embarrassment. No doubt you’ve heard the chorus of criticisms being hurled at this transformative president over his reaction to the BP oil spill off the Gulf Coast of the United States. And to be sure, some of it is warranted:
“[I]f there's any sense in which this BP spill can be fairly called Obama's Katrina, it would stem from his Bush-like failure to send in the cavalry long ago... to prevent the spillover effect it's having on the ocean and Gulf Coast.” (The oil has landed, The iPINIONS Journal, May 24, 2010)
But far too much of this criticism is fickle, hypocritical, and emotionally wrought. Nothing demonstrates this quite like the fact that those who once praised Obama for not feigning emotion for political gain are the very ones now damning him for not acting like a drama queen. Specifically, they want him to show (them) that he’s really “furious” about the environmental catastrophe this spill is causing. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is the lead vocalist in this respect:
“It’s not a good narrative arc: The man who walked on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water... [U]nless he wants his story to be marred by a pattern of passivity, detachment, acquiescence and compromise, he’d better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative.” (Dowd, New York Times, June 1, 2010)
The real narrative arc of course is that columnists (like Dowd) who once fawned over Obama’s style are now criticizing it. But I hoped Obama would show the same indifference towards their criticisms that he showed when they were swooning over him not so long ago. Because I knew it would be a travesty if he were to try now to emulate that emotional chameleon Bill Clinton — who these same media prima donnas ridiculed for continually feigning emotions to curry political favor.
This is why I thought Obama would do well to ignore the criticisms and just continue doing everything humanly possible to deal with the fallout from this spill. First and foremost, this includes mobilizing every resource at his disposal to limit the heartrending impact on the livelihoods of the people as well as the wildlife and ecosystem of the Gulf. And all indications are that he’s doing just that.
Still, in this respect, Obama recently conceded that he should have seized control for combating the spread of the slick from BP a lot sooner. And BP CEO Tony Hayward only reinforced this fact by making the patently misleading, if not delusional, assertion last weekend that BP is on top of everything — even as crude oil was beginning to defile the white sandy beaches of Florida.
More importantly, though, Obama had better seize every opportunity to be seen doing everything humanly possible to contain and cleanup this spill. Clearly this is why he made quite a show during two recent visits of reassuring people that his administration will still be addressing their concerns in the weeks and months to come when his media critics — who are posturing as their watchdogs today — will have moved on to their next pet peeve. He even canceled a planned state visit to Australia and Indonesia for a second time to avoid any appearance of not paying due attention to this still unfolding environmental tragedy.
“It’s brutally unfair. It’s wrong. And what I told these men and women — and what I have said since the beginning of this disaster — is that I’m going to stand with the people of the Gulf Coast until they are made whole… We will fight alongside them, until the awful damage that has been done is reversed, people are back on their feet, and the great natural bounty of the Gulf coast is restored.” (Obama, Huffington Post, June 5, 2010)
He quite sensibly continues to remind the American people that the only reason he has not seized control of operations to plug the gushing pipe from BP is that the federal government does not have the deep-water drilling resources or expertise to do any better. He’s also continues to stress the fact that BP will pay not only for the cleanup of this mess but also for all consequential damage to fishing, wildlife, tourism, etc.
“They say they want to make it right. That’s part of their advertising campaign. Well, we want them to make it right... What I don’t want to hear is, when they’re spending that kind of money on their shareholders and spending that kind of money on TV advertising, that they’re nickel and diming fishermen or small businesses here in the Gulf.” (Obama criticizing BP for announcing a $10 billion dividend payout and launching a $50 million ad campaign, Reuters, June 4, 2010)
Yet none of this has appeased his erstwhile media courtiers; no doubt because they just want him to do something that will demonstrate that they have the power to affect him. In this case, they apparently want him to shout obscenities at BP to prove he’s even capable of human emotion.
But I thought Obama was smart and unflappable enough to realize that pissing all over BP will just end up hurting the very people whose cause his critics claim to be championing. As it is, their toxic carping has already caused the company to lose over $80 billion (half of its market value), all of which could have been siphoned off instead in government fines, cleanup costs, and private lawsuits...
Imagine my dismay on Tuesday then, when — as if acting on cue from director Spike Lee to “go off” on BP — Obama used profane language and threatened bodily harm during an interview on NBC’s Today Show:
“I talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers — so I know whose ass to kick.”
At least Clinton was man enough to emote on his own accord instead of doing so like a puppet on the strings of hysterical columnists, wingnut bloggers, and race-baiting filmmakers. This is not the kind of CHANGE we can believe in. What a damn shame...
Frankly, he’s even more naïve than Hillary Clinton once accused him of being if he thinks this puppetry will appease Democratic pundits like Dowd and James Carville. Because their disaffection has become so unhinged that they have now joined wingnut Republicans in trying to turn Obama into another Jimmy Carter.
They are doing this by tagging the label of “incompetent” to their spiteful narrative about his presidency. This is why it was probably ill-advised for Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, Obama’s point man in the Gulf, to lament all over TV on Sunday that this oil spill is “holding the Gulf hostage.” Never mind the undeniable truth of his statement.
The notion that Obama is incompetent, however, is belied by the fact that just months ago all of these critics, including begrudging Republicans, were hailing him for the unparalleled competence he displayed in passing historic healthcare reform. A feat they conceded was especially commendable in light of the fact that even his own advisers had bought into the media dirge about this being a lost cause...
Now comes the all too foreseeable irony of Britons complaining about Obama’s criticisms jeopardizing their pensions, which are heavily invested in BP stock. But to this I say get behind the Americans who have been complaining from day one about BP’s corporate greed and recklessness, which have led to eleven being killed, the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands being ruined, and the priceless ecosystem of the Gulf Coast of the United States being destroyed.
In any event, I hope for Obama’s sake that this gushing well, which is becoming a metaphor for his hemorrhaging popularity, is a distant memory by the time he launches his reelection campaign for 2012. Because, given the herd-like nature of political opinion (left and right), it’s very easy for this Dowd narrative to seep deep into public consciousness.
Then the fatuous notion that this oil spill is Obama’s Katrina (or worse) will become generally accepted wisdom. And that will surely doom his presidency. (Bear in mind that Katrina landed in 2005 — after Bush had already been reelected in 2004.)
NOTE: BP initially claimed that only 5,000 barrels of oil were gushing from this well each day. But in a BBC interview on Sunday, CEO Tony Hayward said that BP’s efforts to cap the well head have resulted in the capture of 10,000 barrels a day, which is clearly twice the amount BP initially claimed was the total flow. Now BP is claiming that it will soon be capturing up to 30,000 barrels...
In the meantime, we can all see from that riveting spill cam that there has been virtually no reduction in the flow of oil gushing out of that ruptured pipe despite BP’s notoriously feckless efforts. This means that we can believe either BP or our lying eyes. Is there any wonder nobody trusts BP...?
June 11, 2010
caribbeannetnews
By Anthony L. Hall:
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama always seemed indifferent to media pundits swooning over him. But instead of acting scorned, they made a virtue of this diss by propagating a narrative about him as a preternaturally cool, intellectual dude who never gets fazed by anything: remember “no drama Obama”?
Well, that was then. Because these same pundits are now lashing out at him with a vengeance that would make even a woman scorned cringe with embarrassment. No doubt you’ve heard the chorus of criticisms being hurled at this transformative president over his reaction to the BP oil spill off the Gulf Coast of the United States. And to be sure, some of it is warranted: “[I]f there's any sense in which this BP spill can be fairly called Obama's Katrina, it would stem from his Bush-like failure to send in the cavalry long ago... to prevent the spillover effect it's having on the ocean and Gulf Coast.” (The oil has landed, The iPINIONS Journal, May 24, 2010)
But far too much of this criticism is fickle, hypocritical, and emotionally wrought. Nothing demonstrates this quite like the fact that those who once praised Obama for not feigning emotion for political gain are the very ones now damning him for not acting like a drama queen. Specifically, they want him to show (them) that he’s really “furious” about the environmental catastrophe this spill is causing. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is the lead vocalist in this respect:
“It’s not a good narrative arc: The man who walked on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water... [U]nless he wants his story to be marred by a pattern of passivity, detachment, acquiescence and compromise, he’d better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative.” (Dowd, New York Times, June 1, 2010)
The real narrative arc of course is that columnists (like Dowd) who once fawned over Obama’s style are now criticizing it. But I hoped Obama would show the same indifference towards their criticisms that he showed when they were swooning over him not so long ago. Because I knew it would be a travesty if he were to try now to emulate that emotional chameleon Bill Clinton — who these same media prima donnas ridiculed for continually feigning emotions to curry political favor.
This is why I thought Obama would do well to ignore the criticisms and just continue doing everything humanly possible to deal with the fallout from this spill. First and foremost, this includes mobilizing every resource at his disposal to limit the heartrending impact on the livelihoods of the people as well as the wildlife and ecosystem of the Gulf. And all indications are that he’s doing just that.
Still, in this respect, Obama recently conceded that he should have seized control for combating the spread of the slick from BP a lot sooner. And BP CEO Tony Hayward only reinforced this fact by making the patently misleading, if not delusional, assertion last weekend that BP is on top of everything — even as crude oil was beginning to defile the white sandy beaches of Florida.
More importantly, though, Obama had better seize every opportunity to be seen doing everything humanly possible to contain and cleanup this spill. Clearly this is why he made quite a show during two recent visits of reassuring people that his administration will still be addressing their concerns in the weeks and months to come when his media critics — who are posturing as their watchdogs today — will have moved on to their next pet peeve. He even canceled a planned state visit to Australia and Indonesia for a second time to avoid any appearance of not paying due attention to this still unfolding environmental tragedy.
“It’s brutally unfair. It’s wrong. And what I told these men and women — and what I have said since the beginning of this disaster — is that I’m going to stand with the people of the Gulf Coast until they are made whole… We will fight alongside them, until the awful damage that has been done is reversed, people are back on their feet, and the great natural bounty of the Gulf coast is restored.” (Obama, Huffington Post, June 5, 2010)
He quite sensibly continues to remind the American people that the only reason he has not seized control of operations to plug the gushing pipe from BP is that the federal government does not have the deep-water drilling resources or expertise to do any better. He’s also continues to stress the fact that BP will pay not only for the cleanup of this mess but also for all consequential damage to fishing, wildlife, tourism, etc.
“They say they want to make it right. That’s part of their advertising campaign. Well, we want them to make it right... What I don’t want to hear is, when they’re spending that kind of money on their shareholders and spending that kind of money on TV advertising, that they’re nickel and diming fishermen or small businesses here in the Gulf.” (Obama criticizing BP for announcing a $10 billion dividend payout and launching a $50 million ad campaign, Reuters, June 4, 2010)
Yet none of this has appeased his erstwhile media courtiers; no doubt because they just want him to do something that will demonstrate that they have the power to affect him. In this case, they apparently want him to shout obscenities at BP to prove he’s even capable of human emotion.
But I thought Obama was smart and unflappable enough to realize that pissing all over BP will just end up hurting the very people whose cause his critics claim to be championing. As it is, their toxic carping has already caused the company to lose over $80 billion (half of its market value), all of which could have been siphoned off instead in government fines, cleanup costs, and private lawsuits...
Imagine my dismay on Tuesday then, when — as if acting on cue from director Spike Lee to “go off” on BP — Obama used profane language and threatened bodily harm during an interview on NBC’s Today Show:
“I talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers — so I know whose ass to kick.”
At least Clinton was man enough to emote on his own accord instead of doing so like a puppet on the strings of hysterical columnists, wingnut bloggers, and race-baiting filmmakers. This is not the kind of CHANGE we can believe in. What a damn shame...
Frankly, he’s even more naïve than Hillary Clinton once accused him of being if he thinks this puppetry will appease Democratic pundits like Dowd and James Carville. Because their disaffection has become so unhinged that they have now joined wingnut Republicans in trying to turn Obama into another Jimmy Carter.
They are doing this by tagging the label of “incompetent” to their spiteful narrative about his presidency. This is why it was probably ill-advised for Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, Obama’s point man in the Gulf, to lament all over TV on Sunday that this oil spill is “holding the Gulf hostage.” Never mind the undeniable truth of his statement.
The notion that Obama is incompetent, however, is belied by the fact that just months ago all of these critics, including begrudging Republicans, were hailing him for the unparalleled competence he displayed in passing historic healthcare reform. A feat they conceded was especially commendable in light of the fact that even his own advisers had bought into the media dirge about this being a lost cause...
Now comes the all too foreseeable irony of Britons complaining about Obama’s criticisms jeopardizing their pensions, which are heavily invested in BP stock. But to this I say get behind the Americans who have been complaining from day one about BP’s corporate greed and recklessness, which have led to eleven being killed, the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands being ruined, and the priceless ecosystem of the Gulf Coast of the United States being destroyed.
In any event, I hope for Obama’s sake that this gushing well, which is becoming a metaphor for his hemorrhaging popularity, is a distant memory by the time he launches his reelection campaign for 2012. Because, given the herd-like nature of political opinion (left and right), it’s very easy for this Dowd narrative to seep deep into public consciousness.
Then the fatuous notion that this oil spill is Obama’s Katrina (or worse) will become generally accepted wisdom. And that will surely doom his presidency. (Bear in mind that Katrina landed in 2005 — after Bush had already been reelected in 2004.)
NOTE: BP initially claimed that only 5,000 barrels of oil were gushing from this well each day. But in a BBC interview on Sunday, CEO Tony Hayward said that BP’s efforts to cap the well head have resulted in the capture of 10,000 barrels a day, which is clearly twice the amount BP initially claimed was the total flow. Now BP is claiming that it will soon be capturing up to 30,000 barrels...
In the meantime, we can all see from that riveting spill cam that there has been virtually no reduction in the flow of oil gushing out of that ruptured pipe despite BP’s notoriously feckless efforts. This means that we can believe either BP or our lying eyes. Is there any wonder nobody trusts BP...?
June 11, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)