Where in the World Have Clinton, Obama, Biden, Romney and Others Traveled To? More on the Experience vs. Identity Debate
On Facebook, of which I've become a fan, there is a Google interactive travel map titled "Cities I've Visited." I've ticked off 227 cities listed in 42 countries. Each place has a little pin in it noting Steve Clemons has been there.
But in my case, South America, Africa, and Central Asia are pretty big voids.
But what about the Presidential candidates? I asked all of the campaigns to send me their contender's travel roster for trips outside the US since 2004. I don't yet have all of the data, but I will keep working on it.
An early snap shot though has produced some gaps as stunning as my own record in semi-public view on Facebook.
The biggest void that caught my eye was that despite serving as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Europe, Barack Obama has not been there (unless we count Ukraine. . .but I'm not ready to do that yet) -- at least not recently. This was a bit of a follow-up to a piece I wrote the other day that Obama did not call any issue or policy oriented hearings in the Subcommittee during his tenure.
I spoke to a senior foreign affairs adviser to Senator Obama who I ran into at the foreign policy wonk-packed holiday party of the Center for a New American Security.
This adviser, who must remain unnamed, said that he/she had worked very hard to get Obama to Europe this past year -- but that in the end, a planned trip fell through. This person also admitted that despite his/her own efforts to move Senator Obama towards more focus on Transatlantic issues and the fact that nearly all of the major challenges facing the United States today required significant, robust collaboration with Europe -- "Europe just isn't high on the list of Barack's priorities."
As I've written, Obama gets Cuba right in my view. I think he should have used his brave and politically shrewd stand on nudging forward better US-Cuba relations as a template to push other kinds of principled American engagement in complicated world problems -- just as he had suggested in the debates in his comments that he would be very pro-engagement even with the world's leading thugs-of-state.
The Obama Campaign reported to me the following:
Barack Obama -- International Travel2005
August-SeptemberMoscowKiev
Baku
Azerbaijan
2006
JanuaryQatarKuwait
Iraq
Jordan
Israel
August - September
South AfricaDemocratic Republic of the Congo
Kenya
Djibouti
Chad
On the experience side of things, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Ukraine (which one could technically argue is now on the fringe of Europe -- but I'm not in that camp yet) are clearly part of Senator Obama's "experience portfolio." According to Fareed Zakaria's article that identity may trump experience, one might draw the conclusion that neither Obama's 'identity' or 'experience' include serious exposure to Europe and its leaders.
I don't buy Fareed Zakaria's notion that somehow identity -- meaning race, culture, language and the like -- are more powerful than real world experience. Sean Wilentz goes after Zakaria's argument pretty strongly.
There are many problems around the world -- and it's tough to be everywhere, but it does seem to me to be odd that only Moscow is on the list of capitals of UN Permanent Five nations. There is nothing on the roster from Europe's major capitals. And on other fronts, if one wants real capital to do global institution building, Japan should be on the list. And this century, China is ascendant -- and Obama needs to get to Beijing.
So, how do the others look?
In Hillary Clinton's case, I was given a roster of travel by her Senate office, but it included not only her travel since 2004, but her entire official travel as a Senator. The material still tells an interesting story however.
Hillary Rodham Clinton -- International TravelOfficial Senate Trips
Afghanistan -- Three TimesCanada -- Two Times
United Kingdom -- Two Times
Estonia
France
Germany -- Three Times
Iceland
India
Iraq -- Three Times
Ireland -- Two Times
Israel -- Two Times
Jordan
Kuwait -- Three Times
Netherlands
Norway
Pakistan -- Three Times
Singapore
South Africa
Ukraine
Hillary Clinton's travel profile tells a very different picture.
While she has also not been to China or Japan -- two key global players -- one has to remember that she did lead the American delegation to the Beijing International Womens' Conference years ago -- and thus there is high level travel in her past not represented in this snapshot. She did not go to Russia -- and her trips to Africa are thin.
Both Obama and Clinton have voids when it comes to South America.
But again, Hillary Clinton has traveled the entire world when she was First Lady -- so my critique may seem unfair given her previous experience.
But then again, look at that list -- even if over about 7 years, that's a very thick roster of travel to some of the world's messy regions. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton see the value in getting on a plane and going to see something -- but it's clear that Clinton balances places that are war-torn or having problems with trips where America's closest allies are.
Joe Biden's travel is also interesting. He is also not high on Asia or South America. But he does do hot spots.
Joe Biden -- International Travel2007
SeptemberKuwaitIraq
2006
JanuaryIsraelJuly
IraqKuwait
Jordan
2005
JanuaryIsraelSwitzerland
France
May - June
JordanIraq
Lebanon
Chad/Sudan border
August - September
ItalyDecember
Iraq2004
JanuarySwitzerlandFebruary
EgyptLibya
December
IraqJordan
Bahrain
Israel
Joe Biden's "identity" is very much American -- to play off the Zakaria comment, "I know what it means not to be an American" -- but I think that the experiences he has had globally inform him and his sense of what works and doesn't in the world. To suggest that identity and "solving problems by the gut" is the way we should select our next President seems really wrong-headed.
Governor Mitt Romney's travel, in contrast to the others, is very high on Asia, moderate on Europe -- includes Iraq and Guantanamo, but also gives no attention to Latin America and includes no trips to Africa.
This is what Mitt Romney's team shared with me:
Mitt Romney -- International Travel2004
None2005
None2006
FebruaryTurin, ItalyMarch
Rome, ItalyApril
Guantanamo Bay, CubaMay
IraqDecember
Tokyo, JapanSeoul, Korea
Beijing, China
2007
JanuaryIsraelDespite my surprise about some of the voids in the various candidate's travel profiles, all are travelers. All have passports -- and given the anti-international pugnaciousness that used to be the fad in Congress, this is a good sign overall.
I still don't have all of the travel profiles I'd like to have -- and will post them as they come in. . .and if they come in.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Amazing how Obama and Hillary get themselves to Israel and Hillary even hits my own ancestral home of Ireland twice but neither managed to get to Latin America - not even Mexico.
Hmm...maybe I ought to give Richardson another look.
December 20, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that it'd be good to get a handle on the problems facing the U.S. before visiting our stable allies to work on the problems, no? In that sense, Obama's priorities seem straight
December 20, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? Some people travel from one Hilton Hotel to another and have to ask an aide where they are. Others stay in more modest digs--WC down the hall--and enjoy a rich cultural experience. Did Hillary walk a mile or two on the Great Wall and take a rickshaw ride through the back alleys when she was in Beijing, or did she do her woman's conference thing in her hotel and then skip town? From what I know about Hillary she may well have intermingled with the people somewhat, but we don't know that from the data.
The trips to Iraq are particularly worthless. Look what they've done to McCain.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
December 20, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right about that 'used to be'. You're more optimistic than I am.
December 20, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Obama's emphasis, for his first few years in the Senate at least, has been to visit the "front lines", so to speak, of US strategic competition and conflict. The Caspian region, Africa and the Middle East are the places where the US, Russia and China are now hotly contesting for influence, clients and access against a background of political instability and war.
Djibouti, for example, is the location of the Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa; which Obama visited on his trip. Kenya also is a vital African relationship for the US. The US, I believe, still has an agreement with Kenya that allows it access to the port of Mombasa and airfields at Embakasi and Nanyuki. Obama's trip to Kenya sparked an outbreak of "Obama-mania," and so in itself contributed to positive US-Kenyan relations aside from any other business Obama did there.
Chad is a crucial spot where the US appears to be cooperating with our new best buddies the French on a sub-Saharan strategy.
Obama's trips have tended to deal with substantive issues, not just fact-finding, networking and schmoozing with old friends. In advance of his trip to Africa, Obama and Leahy successfully passed an amendment to provide $13 million in assistance to the DRC for military reform and election assistance. However, his trip to the Congo was canceled, I believe, because of intensified violence.
His trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Dick Lugar was concerned with keeping tabs on Nunn-Lugar activities, and was followed up with the Lugar-Obama bill to extend Nunn-Lugar to conventional weapons proliferation.
In South Africa, Obama vigorously and publicly criticized the South African government's AIDS response, and he and his wife took an AIDS test there themselves.
By the way, Baku is in Azerbaijan - it shouldn't be listed as a separate stop.
December 20, 2007 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight. If one office gives an inquirer a list for one year with months of travel broken out on it, and the other office gives a list of several years' "official" travel on it, it's perfectly fair to draw conclusions critical of one of the two candidates from these mis-matched lists. Doesn't wash with me, alas.
One might turn the question around. Why so many junkets for Senator X? They used to be called junkets once upon a time, as I remember. I count 33 (31 if one discounts Canada--should one?)
Were these "official" journeys related to Armed Service Committee work? (She chairs no subcommittees there, as far as I can see)
Maybe it related to her duties on the Environment and Public Health Committee where this Senator chairs the subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health. Or maybe to her duties on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Or maybe they related to credential burnishing preparatory to a Presidential race? Hmmm.... at least its a theory.
aMike
December 20, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And maybe she travels there because she is truly interested in the health and welfare of the troops and wants to see first hand what is going on in these places. Perhaps it has something to do with the environmental illnesses suffered by the military in the last several years.
I've noticed in the last few weeks the stepup in negativity and nastiness in Sen. Clinton's campaign coverage. No matter what she says or does reporters assign nasty, ulterior motives to it, just as they did with Al Gore - in fact, it is the same insulting comments in some cases. The public has been so conditioned to this that when she responds with a complete list of her travels as senator she is criticized - if she had responded with a list of one year's travel, she would be accused of "hiding junkets".
Here's another thought - someone who is preparing to run for president should be doing his/her homework and learning as much as possible about the war we're embroiled in.
Clemon's claims are specious anyway - there is no reason a curious candidate cannot read and be briefed.
December 21, 2007 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us wanted a President interested in ending the war we are embroiled in and redirecting priorities to concerns of Americans here at home.
Hmmm....maybe I'll chose the one who has spent the least time out of the United States.
December 21, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K offers the level of information that this piece lacks. Quality over quantity is a good rule to live by in my book (and in others). Just an itinerary does not make for a very persuasive bonafide. At least it shouldn't.
I've done my share of traveling too. I've not traveled to 227 cities nor 42 countries but then I'm a wee humble designer! But still, my list means what if I were to run for office? Something certainly but what is it's real value? Being worldly means more than simply traveling. It also includes understanding. Sensitivity. Participation. And the thing all politicians hate to hear - results. Who did the candidates visit? What was the purpose of the visit? What issues were discussed? Was there anything accomplished short-term or long? Yes this means an utterly crippling amount of information but there's no need to list all that. Perhaps the trips are categorized - political, tag-a-long junket, business, humanitarian, personal, a combination of these or others and a (yes/no/not yet) result rating. There are many (apparently) meaningless trips taken by politicians that don't amount to much. Sometimes the lack of results or (apparent) purpose is due to bad timing and sometimes it's a tip of the persons ability 'in the field' or ability to 'look busy'. As an example gaze at Condi Rice's travels. Does any sane person think she's effective or qualified as a result of the number of different stamps in her passport? Would her list of travels carry any weight in this manner of comparison?
December 21, 2007 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Barack Obama has not been there (unless we count Ukraine. . .but I'm not ready to do that yet)
Why exclude Ukraine or even Russia from Europe? Geographically and historically they belong. Not of course to Western Europe, but Eastern Europe is still Europe.
On the larger topic we should remember that government officials who gad around the world on the taxpayers' money are generally not well though of. See: "Junketing".
December 21, 2007 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
Uh... what are you doing?
Really. This is a pretty shallow endeavour. You know, Hillary Clinton is my Senator. Barack Obama is another reader's Senator. I can't speak for an Illinois resident but as a New Yorker I've been unimpressed with Clinton's attention to local issues. Maybe she's traveling too much.
Somebody also brought up the issue of junkets. Travel by government officials is often suspect, you know.
Beyond that, what is it you think they see when they visit hot spots or even our allies? They tend to see what their hosts show them. You could probably learn more about most countries by spending the day with Human Rights Watch in New York than by going on a tour.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 21, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a very sad and misguided post, suggesting a view of the ideal candidate as the clubbiest. Perhaps it would lead to a rave more or less like the one Richardson offers of himself in a somewhat admiring, somewhat skeptical article in the Times today. He reduces everything to the personal: did he know how to warm hearts in Japan by pulling out a cigar instead of lecturing them on smoking? did he manage to clap a tyrant on the back without getting shot? Mostly, that left me disgusted at Richardson and demanding one think about such concerns as policy, a candidate's vision of America's place in the world, and, for someone concerned with experience, accomplishments. Richardson earned a "none of the above." This post makes me react quite the same way.
In effect, I agree with all the comments here on the difference between confronting issues on the front burner rather than "schmoozing" or "junkets," with the exception of Bluebell's. The "let's all stay home until we've solved America's problems" (oh, and when will that be? And who in Africa or Palestine will die by then? And what about part of the global in global warming don't you understand?) is dead wrong. And indeed, how far is it really from the America-first vision that got us in this pile of manure? One had to judge Bush not by whether he had had enough good meals in Paris but one could still judge him by his ignorance of and downright lack of curiosity about the globe. Is it a coincidence that he led a brutal foreign policy rather than an isolationist one?
I think one can long for days when America was seen as a leader rather than a threat, without in the least advocating a "muscular" foreign policy or an ignorant one. To me, Slaughter, Ikenberry, the rest of the liberal hawks, and the Neocons are all just perversely triumphalist misreadings of the worst of the Cold War, and the isolationist or libertarian fringe of the right is just the flip side of it.
Meanwhile, hope Clinton eats well.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 21, 2007 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only remotely on thread but I disagree with Hill's (her org's really) comment that you don't learn about foreign policy by a few years
living abroad as a child.
You do.Sort of.You come to understand not only that the people in Country A are different from those in the US . But that the ones in Country B are also different but in yet a different way.
So you ingrain a tendency to be slow in assuming you understand the motives of any particular foreigner. (Second nature for continentals- not the Brits of course- but very much not here where we can't even empathize with Manolo Mexicano who's cutting our lawn.) Pretty useful in foreign policy I think.
Probably Hill does too but right now she's trying to win a nomination.
I'm looking forward to voting for either of them with pleasure. Or for Richardson who really seems to be best qualified .Or Edwards.
In fact, it's a terrific field.
December 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink