Archive for the ‘Obama Administration’ Category
Is Obama on the Gorbachev Path-I?
Indeed, the international situation is still complicated. The dangers to which we have no right to turn a blind eye remain. There has been some change, however, or, at least, change is starting….A new, democratic philosophy of international relations, of world politics is breaking through… Considering that world public opinion and the peoples of the world are very concerned about the situation in the world, our policy is an invitation to dialogue, to a search, to a better world, to normalization of international relations.
The above is an excerpt from Mikhail Gorbachev’s speech in 1987. The words have an uncanny sense of semblance to the recent foreign policy speeches of President Obama. The foreign policy vision of Gorbachev and Obama share a commonality: the acknowledgement that challenges persists yet there room for change. This post explores what makes President Obama’s foreign policy objectives challenging and promising.
Is President Obama on the Gorbachev Path?
Mikhail Gorbachev was a victim of his own reform movement. Though praised internationally for his bold vision, Gorbachev’s popularity dipped dramatically in the erstwhile U.S.S.R. The vision and rhetoric of reform is more appealing than actual reform process. Is President Obama treading the Gorbachev path? Or is it still too early to decide? I must confess that the comparison here is not about the impact of reform policies on the political system but more specifically on the political future of the two leaders.
President Obama’s approach and policies in four particular areas can be referred to as ‘reformatory’ if not revolutionary: narratives on race in the country, foreign relations of the U.S., health care in America and issues of fiscal responsibility. This four part analysis will deal with each aspect in detail. The objective is to review the kind of reform that President Obama is aspiring for and the emerging response to it. Such analysis would equip us to determine whether or not President Obama is heading down the Gorbachev path. Click to continue…
President Obama’s Speeches are Aimed at Uncertainty Reduction
R.L. Health and J. Bryant in their book Human Communication: Theory and Research stated, “Interactions are expected to increase predictability with the goal that this will lead to the ability to predict and explain what will occur in future interactions.” This explanation is the core of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) of Communications. Simply stated the URT emphasizes that reducing uncertainty is the central motive of communication. The four major foreign policy speeches of President Barak Obama epitomize the central tenet of the URT. Contrary to popular perception, President Obama is not attempting to induce changes in behaviors of nation-states or other non-state actors. He is simply reducing uncertainty in international affairs by clearly explaining the basis and goals of U.S. foreign policy under his Administration. The stated goals are marked by an element of continuity and the speeches are merely contextual communication of the same. Click to continue…
Reactions to President Oabma’s Cairo Moment
President Obama’s Cairo moment was anxiously awaited around the globe. Anticipations about President Obama’s speech had dominated the international media for the past week and managed to wrestle the headlines from the striking Tiananmen Square commemorations. The content of the speech will continue to be analyzed by scores of scholars across the globe for days to come. But what were the immediate responses of the common people and political leadership to President Obama’s speech? Here are a few reactions.
Expectations from President Obama’s Cairo Speech
From taxi drivers to high-ranking bureaucrats; from university students to renowned political analysts, everyone in the Arab and Muslim world seems to be waiting for June 4 – the day when President Obama is expected to address the Muslim world. Student exams scheduled for June 4th have been postponed at the Cairo University, the venue for President Obama’s speech. This is not the first time that President Obama would approach the followers of Islamic faith with the objective of clarifying the U.S. policy towards the ‘Muslim world’. Since the inception of his term, President Obama is attempting to re-define America’s diplomatic outreach in an effort to reverse the tide of anti-Americanism among the Muslims across the world. So what makes the June 4th speech so special? To me it’s the burden of expectations. From open letters in leading newspapers of Egypt to op-eds by scholars of international affairs everyone has a list of dos and don’ts for President Obama. Though we cannot appropriately anticipate what President Obama will say we can examine what the Arab and Muslim world expects him to say.
[AP Photo/Ben Curtis]
Sympathize, Empathize or Rationalize: Obama Administration’s Policy Choices in Pakistan
As the AFPAK strategy session concluded in Washington arguments for and against providing aid to Pakistan dominated the op-ed columns and the blogosphere. The U.S. cannot deprive Pakistan of essential aid because there are fears that the Country might collapse. At the same time U.S. aid will not solve most of Pakistan’s problems. So what should the Obama Administration do? Can the U.S. merely feel sorry for the state of affairs in Pakistan or should the challenges facing the Pakistan be recognized and a cooperative counter-Taliban effort be continued? Or should the U.S. rationalize in terms of delineating the respective responsibilities of the Pakistani Government and the international community? Click to continue…
Pakistan Beyond ‘AFPAK’
The Obama Administration before taking office was well aware that Pakistan would be the most compelling threat for the U.S, foreign policy in the coming days. President Obama’s AFPAK strategy was presented as an attempt to restructure America’s approach in dealing with the Al-qaeda- Taliban challenge. In terms of strategy and approach President Obama’s Pakistan policy appears sound, but it needs to be realized that the nature and degree of crisis confronting Pakistan is yet to be fully grasped. The greatest test for the Obama Presidency will not be to deal with the Taliban threat but to fully comprehend the Pakistan challenge. Click to continue…
President Obama’s Diplomatic Outreach
The U.S. has for long sought to define and relate to its allies in unambiguous terms. President Bush epitomized this approach in his famous ‘either with us or against us’ speech and through his policy of pre-emption. The Obama Presidency appears to have opened with the objective of de-categorization of countries in U.S. foreign policy. President Obama is challenging the traditional tags for casting friends, enemies, competitors or facilitators while discarding the rigid criteria of ‘either with us or against us’. President Obama’s foreign policy approach puts Lord Palmerstone’s contention into action: “We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies, we have only permanent interests.” This change of policy goes beyond a simple transition from Republican to Democratic administrations; it involves a transformation of global relations. Click to continue…
The Obama era of National Security Reform
Two important developments in the recent days are hinting at real changes in the U.S. national security approach. President Obama’s promise of change is proving not to be mere rhetoric; concrete policy proposals are being discussed for transforming the security apparatus and approach of the U.S.
[Photo Courtesy:www.whitehouse.gov/]
It’s now called “AFPAK”
There is a recent and overwhelming influx of the term “AFPAK” in jargon of international relations. The term owes it origin to the new policy approach adopted by the Obama Administration. The intragency review of the international strategy in Afghanistan headed by Bruce Riedel concluded that the counter-terrorism efforts need to focus on the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So now we have the AfPak war. Though President Obama’s intentions can barely be doubted there are some serious concerns that the U.S. will have to contend with in dealing with “AFPAK”.
[Photo Courtesy: Reuters/Jason Reed] Click to continue…