Barack Obama: An International Disaster Waiting to Happen
In the opinion of PoliGazette’s Michael van der Galien, Barack Obama is an international disaster waiting to happen.
Barack Obama often talks about how George W. Bush has destroyed America’s image in the world. Most foreigners, he says, dislike the US tremendously these days; perhaps more so than ever before. Europeans, Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Communists, Capitalists, Africans; among all groups anti-Americans has increased since 2000.
He has argued that the main person responsible for this increase in anti-Americans in the rest of the world is George Bush. Bush has behaved like a cowboy, he has insulted America’s traditional allies, he preferred using force over diplomacy, and he gave the rest of the world the impression that their opinions did not count.
Or so says Obama.
And to a large degree, I agree with Obama. I think that Bush’s policies have indeed increased anti-Americanism and I also think that the next president should do something about this growing problem.
However, Obama’s conduct gives me the impression that he would not treat America’s allies, and especially Europe, in a more respectful manner than Bush has. In fact, I’d say, Obama has already proven to be an international disaster waiting to happen.
He talks about how important it is to talk to one’s allies, but he has never met with European leaders (he’ll do that now, just so he can present himself as a valid candidate for the presidency). Furthermore, Obama wants to talk to America’s enemies, while the traditional allies are ignored or insulted.
Case in point (h/t to a reader). Yesterday morning, Barack Obama did an interview with ABC News (Diane Sawyer interviewing), in which he said, regarding action the US should be taking with respect to Iran: “…what we should be doing is gathering our allies together in a serious effort to apply sanctions to Iran and encourage them to change their behavior.”
Read that sentence again. “A serious effort.” Now, as a European, I agree that more should be done to stop Iran, but Obama seems to forget that European leaders are very seriously trying “to apply sanctions to Iran and encourage them to change their behavior.” In just one sentence, the man who says he wants to improve America’s relationship with Europe insults Europe and denigrates Europe’s attempts to do something about the rising threat Iran poses to the region and the rest of the world.
This is cowboy diplomacy at its finest. Arrogance at display. In just one sentence, the man of hope and change proves that he thinks little of Europe; this while Europe is America’s most important traditional ally. America depends on Europe, and Europe depends on America. The two have to reach out to each other; they should not give each other the impression that the other is not worth much.
But that’s exactly what Obama is doing here. The ‘uniter’ and man who says he will be able to improve America’s image in the world shows us Europeans that if he wins, he may not be much of an improvement of Bush. He has already threatened to take on Pakistan - another US ally - and now he’s insulting Europe when it comes to the issue of Iran; this while he - at the same time - has advocated holding direct talks with the Mullahs.
One gets the impression that the ‘uniter’ will prefer unilateralism. This while unilateralism is the main cause for America’s unpopularity in recent years. Now, I’d say, compare this to what John McCain said about the same subject recently: “Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”
I’m not always in full agreement with the Senator from Arizona, but he’s dead-on on this issue.
Obama’s words in recent weeks and months are now starting to worry increasingly more European (not just me): ‘ European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.’
The U.N. Security Council has passed four resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium, each time highlighting the offer of financial and diplomatic incentives from a European-led coalition if Tehran suspends enrichment, a route to producing fuel for nuclear weapons. But Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said he would make such suspension a topic for discussion with Iran, rather than a precondition for any negotiations to take place.
European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran. Although European officials are eager to welcome a U.S. president promising renewed diplomacy and multilateralism after years of tensions with the Bush administration, they feel strongly about continuing on the current path.
“Dropping a unanimous Security Council condition would simply be interpreted by Iran and America’s allies as unconditional surrender, and America’s friends would view this as confirmation of America’s basic unreliability,” said François Heisbourg, a Paris-based military analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “A hell of a way to start a presidential term.”
In other words, Obama is willing to do whatever it takes to make America less popular among its enemies. Even if doing so means that America has to insult its allies.
Note to Obama; words matter. Since you’ve always said so yourself, perhaps you should be extra careful. Pointing out that more should be done is fine, but insult Europe-led efforts is, most certainly, not.
Together with most Europeans I’m hoping that the next US president will pay us, Europeans, the respect we deserve. Obama does not seem to be the one willing to ‘pay’ it. This despite all his nice words; and those of the Democratic Party. Obama may not use force easily, but he will undermine Europe in different ways; he will simply shove Europe aside, and declare that all Europe does is ‘useless.’ He will not choose multilateralism, he will favor unilateralism.
And, by doing so, Obama will make America increasingly less popular.
Internationally minded Americans should keep that in mind. This man is not going to be the one who unites Europe and the US. Instead, US-Europe relations are likely to deteriorate during an Obama administration.
I heard that Iran test fired another group of missiles. I hope you will consider this timely article: Sen. Obama - I Had a Dream Last Night - (This Dream Actually Occurred) It is from zachjonesishome.wordpress.com It is found at: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/sen-obama-i-had-a-dream-last-night/
Yes even the democrats own Brookings institute acknowledges that Iran has refused serious negotiations from Germany, UK and France with China and Russia in tow.
Wanna know why?
They are buying time until they have THE weapon. Once they do then they are the regional superpower they have wanted to be. Obama will just give them an easier ride to the promised land.
Remember I believe that Barak Obama did not intend to win the nomination. I think this has caught him by surprise and he is now rushing around trying to catch up on things he does not know about and his support team is a bunch of far left whiny liberals who are going to steer him toward pacification. Going to give him inexperience advice and going to give him lots of headaches.
Wow, that has to be the most finely parsed statement taken out of context to dredge up faux outrage that I’ve ever read here. "A serious effort" is a massive insult to Europe and Europeans even though Obama has made it clear repeatedly that it’s the US who hasn’t been making a serious diplomatic effort in this manner.
I know I shouldn’t read you when it comes to Obama, as it has long been clear that you’re well past rational thought when comes to him, but still. Wow.
I agree that he’s not handling it well, but it is more form over substance and there is a lot of distortion.
First off, in the very same article you link to, there is this: "Obama advisers appear to distinguish between full negotiations and preparatory talks with Iran, stressing that the most immediate consequence of their approach is that a U.S. official likely would accompany European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana when he meets with Iranian representatives, a shift European officials said they would welcome."
Funny how you forgot to talk about that part of it.
Which highlights the flaw in the post’s excerpt from the same article. Obama’s plan DOESN’T go against any EU or UN resolutions. He has never said he would give Iran anything unconditionally, merely that he would talk to them directly, which the EU is already doing! Any assertion to the contrary seems to be completely and utterly false. The relevant text of the UN resolutions is as follows:
from UN SC Resolution 1696:"Endorses, in this regard, the proposals of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative, for a long-term comprehensive arrangement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme"
and the similar UN SC Resolution 1737: "Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear nonproliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative to seek a negotiated solution"
So, yes he’s using the wrong words, and words do matter, but his policy is actually much more in line with International aims than McCain’s.
"He has already threatened to take on Pakistan - another US ally"
So you have expertly assessed that Pakistan hasn’t been given enough chances and can handle things on its own, that involvement from the US reflects impatience, that Pakistan hasn’t wasted its alliance to the US, and has not remained too passive to deserve more tolerance. Obama disagrees, and he seems smarter than you thus far.
"In just one sentence, the man who says he wants to improve America’s relationship with Europe insults Europe and denigrates Europe’s attempts to do something about the rising threat Iran poses to the region and the rest of the world."
I can’t see a united, serious effort today and I certainly can’t see an implied insult or assessment of inadequacy regarding our commitment.
"Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy."
This is Obama’s position if you look at what you say in your article - demands on Europe coupled with talks with the mullahs.
"So, yes he’s using the wrong words, and words do matter, but his policy is actually much more in line with International aims than McCain’s."
So Michael has emphasized words over substance, which he often accuses a… Certain person of. Oh this is just bad for my diet.
Dont you think the timing for this tests are intended to do just what they are doing. Rattle the nerves. Isreal should bomb those nuke enriching plants before they go too far. Iran is a very aggressive nation and will HIT Israel. Israel should not wait for Obama to straighten things out…this is the middle east..center of conflict! I SAY ISRAEL SHOULD HIT THEM NOW OR PAY LATER! I hope before the end of the year. The whole sabre rattling crap is getting old.
Well, he may not have met with various European leaders. But then, how often do European leaders make time to meet with just an U.S. Senator? After all, until this campaign got rolling, Obama was, from a foreign perspective, just one not very prominent, first-term Senator.
I realize Americans think we are super-important in the world. But do the leaders of every other country make time to meet with any of our hundreds of legislators who happen to want to talk? Somehow, I doubt it.
P.S. FYI, currently it is only possible to read the first dozen or so comments on several of the threads I have looked at. And impossible to make comments when you hit that limit, too. Is it a problem with particular versions of particular web browsers? Or something more generic?
I do not know why the Democrats seem fixiated on talking at all costs. I mean Bill Clinton conceded nearly everything to the North Koreans in exchange for not building nuke weapons and suddenly……..boom…….like our nukes?
Iran and North Korean officials have had talks many a time over the last several years. The negotiating that North Korea used so effectively in the 90’s against Clinton is being repeated almost ver batim by the Iranians in the last several years.
Am I the only one seeing this? Or does the liberal Democrats believe more in a saviour then does the Religious Right that fills the GOP??? I truly am confused on this peace at all costs issue they seem to grasp with a death grip.
RRRocks, it’s not "talk at all costs" because…. wait for it…. it costs NOTHING to talk.
You history on NK is also severly distorted, we were in talks with NK about nukes under Clinton. They certainly weren’t perfect, and there were disagreements, then GWB took office and we stopped talking to them, THEN things progressively got worse.
Michael, even if he emphasizes the word ’serious’, as if he’s suggesting the current talks are not serious, I’m not sure how you can take what he said and turn it into the idea that he’s going to go unilateral. The very fact he says he wants to gather our allies suggests multilateralism, not unilateralism.
Or is there something I’m not seeing here? Until he says, "Europe suck, so we’re doing it alone" (or similar nicer words) I need to respectfully disagree.
That’s a nice key point - 4 "demanding" Europe may be serious about it, but they certainly have a history of lacking will.
Wouldn’t be such a bad thing if Europeans paid the US some respect.
"Wouldn’t be such a bad thing if Europeans paid the US some respect."While we are making quips: Would be cool if the US acted like it wanted some.OH SNAP! Well, this is inventive and useful.
I have traveled the world and don’t sense any more anti-Americanism than I have since the ’80s There were a bunch of vocal critics of America then, and our cowboy president was putting missiles in Europe. Oh, now he is regaled as a great leader. Back then, aside from the vocal critics I ran into a lot of people that were grateful for American leadership, and I run into those people today as well. Years from now you will be raving about the great job that Bush did for making hard decisions and making the world a better place.
Why shouldn’t the US act unilaterally? Europe has become completely impotent. You could not handle Yugoslavia. Your biggest democracies undermined UN sanctions on Iraq and were in cahoots with Saddam on Oil for bribes. You cannot field an effective battalion to send to Afghanistan between the whole frigging continent and half of the people you send won’t leave a base. Your birth rate has fallen to way less than your replacement rate so that your only hope to sustain your unsustainable welfare states is to import Muslims. You worry more about being politically correct, your 35 hour work weeks, not offending those easily offendable "youths", and fictional global warming than you care about your own survival and liberties.
I hope Obama does act unilaterally if he is elected because if we want to work with our European "allies" (who vote against the US more than 65% of the time in the UN) to grow a pair of nads and actually do something productive, I believe we will be waiting a long time.
lmao, ahh Utsu, you’re level of thought process is so non-taxing on the mind to read.
"lmao, ahh Utsu, you’re level of thought process is so non-taxing on the mind to read."That insult may have meant something from another person.
This post is going to be nigh-unreadable because of Safari being a browser only slightly smarter than Mark Steyn."You could not handle Yugoslavia."And YOU made it worse."Your biggest democracies undermined UN sanctions on Iraq and were in cahoots with Saddam on Oil for bribes. "The sanctions were indefensible and evil, and the US were pals with Saddam when he gassed people. Is there anything blacker than the proverbial pot?"You cannot field an effective battalion to send to Afghanistan between the whole frigging continent and half of the people you send won’t leave a base. "You diverted forces from Afghanistan to steal Iraq’s oil and has breached international agreements in the two current occupations. Manly."Your birth rate has fallen to way less than your replacement rate so that your only hope to sustain your unsustainable welfare states is to import Muslims."It’s lower in countries with more christian cultures and less social programs aimed at meshing motherhood with careers. Make women choose between the cutesy nuclear family and personal freedom, they go for personal freedom. Also, muslim men marry more none-arab women in Europe, while muslim women have less and less kids on European soil. Welfare states are never unsustainable, but they always need tweaking. Also, the only reason the birth rate is higher in red states in the US is because of mexican immigrants. Same thing in Israel - women don’t have time for 2.1 children, the government refuses to help them and the muslims will be a majority there much sooner than in Europe (provided Israel doesn’t do what I think it’ll do). You worry about your own hind, dear natalist.So, how is your economy based on cheap oil working out? In fact, how sustainable does the global economy of "least resistance to big profits" working out?"You worry more about being politically correct, your 35 hour work weeks, not offending those easily offendable "youths", and fictional global warming than you care about your own survival and liberties. "All of Europe isn’t France or Britain, just like most of the US is becoming less and less like laughable, social regressive and tax money-siphoning red states.As for global warming - a third of the coral reefs are gone, Siberia is heating up and go read Johann Hari’s account on Bangladesh. You might be happy with killing 125 million people who have released a fragment of the CO2 the sself-obesessed American population has, but I am going to try to destroy your freedom to do so.
Kevin I think you should go recheck your facts please.
GWB refused to talk to North Korea unless it was part of a 6 nation deal and in the end the process worked and North Korea has once again agreed to dismantle its nuke facilities.
Just as the US has taken a passive part in the talks that have been going on for years with Iran who is doing the exact same thing that North Korea did. Negotiate till they had nukes.
In Koreas case you might want to check your facts again. You seem confused as to the course of events. You dont create nuclear weapons in a couple years.
Sorry but YES………IT CAN COST A LOT TO TALK.
Let me restate my point here.
North Korea began working on a nuk a lar project in the early 90’s. Bill Clinton stepped in, offered them the moon which they took at the expense of giving up their nuk a lar ambitions. Then towards the end of 2001 Bush delcared them part of an axis of evil as they were actively promoting terrorism by selling ballistic missile Technology as well as actual missiles all over the middle east. Evidence clearly pointed to Chi com weapons in terrorist hands as coming from North Korea. Weapons caches seized by Israel going to Hamas and the PLO had the North Korea stamp all over it.
So Bush delcared them part of an axis of evil. Something I was opposed to but that is an aside note. A few years later Korea detonates a nuk a lar device. So it became painfully obvious that they had been devloping Nukes since the early 1990’s while transporting weapons to terrorists around the world.
Talk can and sometimes does cost quite a lot. Just ask Bill Clinton.
Michael - Once again I must commend you on the quality of your analysis. I would like to add a couple of points. While Obama doesn’t get "youtube" you can rest asured our allies do. They can watch and see how Obama tries to be on both sides of many issues. While he is slicker at it than John Kerry ever was, those who pay close attention can see the obvious. I would like to remind your readers that while the left says that President Bush damaged our relationship with our allies. Germany and France threw out their anti-American administrations and elected pro-American governments. Also lets us not forget that how Bush has handled Iran is exactly what Democrats and Kerry said it should be handled. Get with our allies and the UN and engage in diplomacy. The EU and the UN have been using diplomacy on Iran for years and things have just gotten worse.
Policy wise, the simularity between Obama and Jimmy Carter is genuinely disturbing. Germany will never break the peace. - Neville Chamberlain
The comments on here and this article are really not thought out. Iran test fired the missiles inresponse to the "sabre rattling" and have gained as much ground as they have..BECAUSE of the same policies the Bush administration has been implementing. These policies are the same that sent us into Iraq…and now have made Iran stronger.
McCain back in 2002 was the hero of these same policies.
They aren’t working duh.
DL - with all due respect. Your post is just politics and has zero relationship with reality. Iran has been trying to undermine its neighbors and has been supporting Shiite attacks against its neighbors since the 80’s. Especially in Turkey, Saudi and Lebanon. But in your warped view I suppose Turkey and Iran’s other neighbors deserved it and Iran has been just a victim doing what victim’s do. It is amazing the degree of BS and tortured logic you have to go through in order to exonerate Iran and indict your country. Like so many on the far left - you will pervert reality to side against your own country.
I was in ME and Asia when before and during the actual Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Actually the efforts of Anti-War Movement came here sometime in the January 2002, 1 year before the actual invasion. These groups were heralding "US will invade Afghanistan and Iraq". I tried to ask one woman, and she said she was a UN employee.
I talked to local media men and questioned their coverage of the news. My main question runs something like this: "Why are the the news titled like ‘US Invasion of Iraq’, ‘US Destroying Afghanistan’, ’Saddam will defend his people’, ‘US bombing Iraq’, ‘War Against the Muslims’, ‘Red Cross aiding the victims’, ‘US ultimatum for surrender’, etc.?" News reporters gave a simple answer: their stories were only given by AP, Reuters, CNN, etc. All major national and international news agencies did poorly in explaining the reasons for the wars in the mind of foreign people.
My point is simple: America’s bad image in other countries is because of the manner how MSM disseminated the stories around the world. It’s not actually Bush therefore. When you ask those people of the foreign land, you will be given this viewpoint:
AMERICA = BUSH
While the MSM has been spilling all its poisons vs. Bush, the collateral damage boiled to us, American people.
Thus, spilling the political mess of the country outside by a biased MSM is the root cause of our international problems today.
MSM has become Anti-American.
Somehow, press freedom’s efforts in spreading all our farts around the world have made us "smell like a sh*t" in other countries. I can’t understand why the MSM had to publish to the world even the local caricatures of your labeled "moron" President? That’s not press freedom… that’s treason to America.
Remember, the outside world specially those in the ME do not understand the great divide between our two parties. "America did wrong" means "all" of us did it, both dems and reps.
In conclusion: If Europe is sincere, it should host UN offices. UN stay in America has already become a liability as it became a squealer of information to the enemies.