Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’
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 Roxana Saberi Diplomacy
The case of Roxana Saberi has dominated international news during the past week. After being arrested for purchasing a bottle of wine in January this year, Roxana Saberi has been charged for spying by Iran and sentenced for eight years imprisonment. Saberi’s fate is being viewed as determining the future course of U.S. - Iranian relations. Critics of President Obama’s goodwill policy have raised Saberi’s issue as a vindication of the previous aggressive and non-conciliatory policy vis-à-vis Iran. While President Obama is gravely concerned about the safety of Saberi, he has continued to assert the value of diplomacy in resolving the issue and the Administration has not issued any threatening statements. 
The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has personally intervened in the matter and asked the chief prosecutor to ensure that Saberi is provided with full rights to defend herself, including a fair trial. The Iranian Judiciary has been quick to respond to the President’s appeal by expressing willingness for a careful, quick and fair consideration of an appeal against the earlier court ruling. Saberi’s lawyer has twenty days to file an appeal. So the issue will dominate media headlines and official discussions in the days ahead.
Is the Saberi issue a diplomatic challenge or a diplomatic illusion? Is Saberi being used as a smokescreen by President Obama and President Ahmadinejad to initiate diplomatic measures opposed by neo-cons and hardliners in the U.S. and Iran? The unfolding of the diplomatic and political drama indicates that this contention could be possible. 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…
Is The Afghanistan Crisis Helping Global Reconciliation?
Reformulation of the international approach to manage the Afghanistan crisis is currently dominating political dialogue in most Capitals and strategic headquarters. A host of international conferences scheduled for the next fortnight are expected to explore the best possible alternatives for dealing with the multifaceted challenges in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration has undertaken a comprehensive review of the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan. Suggestions and proposals on the issue are pouring from all quarters and it appears that Afghanistan is poised for a grand moment in history. Will the Afghanistan challenge emerge as the Noah’s Ark – a common platform for global cooperation sheltered from the vagaries of divergent ideologies, political ambitions and nationalistic aspirations? In an atmosphere where power politics of the Realist School is dominating international relations, can Afghanistan serve as a common cause for which ideological differences will be shed and new forms of global engagement will emerge? Click to continue…
Muslim Public opinion on Terrorism and U.S. policies
Terrorism is as much detested by the majority of the global Muslim population as is U.S. troop presence in Muslim countries. A recent study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that the population is widely opposed to the use of violence for religious purposes. However, they endorse the Al-Qaeda’s mission to expel U.S. forces and bases from territory of Muslim countries. Here are few interesting figures from the Survey:
-
Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66% considered the presence of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf as a bad idea. The opposition is largest in Egypt (91%) but also considerable in the NATO member state of Turkey (77%)
-
From 87% (Egypt) to 62% (Indonesia) of the population believes that the U.S. seeks to weaken and divide the Islamic world.
-
Widespread support for involvement of Islamic parties and groups in national politics: 83% in Pakistan, 81% in Indonesia, 53% in Turkey, 50% in Jordan.
-
55% in Pakistan and 84% in Egypt disapproved of attacks on civilians in the U.S.
-
Significant numbers approved of attacks on U.S. troops based in Muslim countries: 83% of the Egyptians approved of the attacks on U.S. in Iraq.
-
According to 36% in Pakistan and 59% in Azerbaijan, the U.s. favors democracy only if the government is cooperative.
Highlighting the general views towards the U.S. the Survey concludes:
Views of the US government continue to be quite negative. The US is widely seen as hypocritically failing to abide by international law, not living up to the role it should play in world affairs, disrespectful of the Muslim people, and using its power in a coercive and unfair fashion.
It is interesting to note that some the most negative responses towards the U.S. have come from countries that are not traditionally considered threatening. This highlights the fact that despite cordial political relations, the Muslim population in many countries is opposed to the U.S. foreign policy strategies. Some of these figure and responses might help the Obama Administration in refurbishing the U.S. policy towards the Muslim world.
The Godfather Doctrine
The Godfather is a classic American movie centered on the rise, confrontations and adaptations of the Corleone family. The Godfather Doctrine is a book by John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell to communicate, through the plot of the movie, the current state of U.S. foreign policy. Rather than attempting to explain the U.S. foreign policy through the complex theories of the disciple of International Relations, Hulsman and Mitchell use the analogy of The Godfather to connect to a wider audience. The reader may choose to agree or disagree with the authors, but this experiment at presenting a foreign policy parable is commendable.
Indian Media Misguides Readers
The Indian media through most of last week was buzzing with reports that President Obama’s proposed Budget has increased military aid to Pakistan. The Economic Times reported on “Huge increases in US military aid to Pakistan”; The Hindu carried an article under the heading “U.S. to increase military aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan”; NDTV ran a commentary on “Obama proposes more military aid to Pakistan”; The Hindustan Times declared “Obama proposes more military aid to Pakistan.”
This news piece emerges from distortion of facts and leads to misinterpretation of President Obama’s policy in South Asia. If you Google the words ‘Obama, Budget, Pakistan, Funding’, in the search results no news agency barring the Indian media carries such assertions. If you get an opportunity to read President Obama’s proposed Budget, you will not find any references to ‘enhanced military aid to Pakistan’. The Budget proposes two complimentary strategies in South Asia, which have been be interpreted by the fancies of the Indian media to provide misleading information. Firstly, the Obama Administration proposes to increase non-military funding to Pakistan. In meeting the U.S. challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the President proposes to increase funding for governance, reconstruction, counter-narcotics and other development activities. Under the proposed scheme the number of U.S. civilian personnel in two countries would be increased. Secondly the Budget includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $ 130 billion for 2010 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, including efforts in Afghanistan and drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly. Since Pakistan has been recognized as vital for ensuring regional security, it can be assumed that a portion of the supplemental appropriations could be provided for Pakistan; but this is an assumption and not a stated policy of the U.S.
India’s political class has for long viewed global politics through the prism of Pakistan, it’s sad that the media has compromised responsible journalism for assuming the mantel of Pakistan bashing. Pakistan has enough failings of its own, imaginary additions are simply unnecessary.
After Bipartisanship at home, its multilateralism abroad
“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
With these words was inaugurated the Presidency of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. The promise of change that had dominated President Obama’s election campaign was expected to graduate as America’s new political philosophy at home and abroad. The emphasis on changing partisan bickering to bipartisan dialogue and hard power based unilateralism to cooperative multilateralism arrived with the new President to re-define America’s image and conduct.