In contrast to the thesis -- much promoted by the president himself -- that he is not an ideologue but a pragmatic, Obama has laid out a strong new normative foundation for his foreign policy. He seeks to promote peace and security but leave democratization and liberalization to the people who find their regimes oppressive. This is in direct contrast to the Bush Neocon thesis that forced regime change is essential because only democracies are reliable partners in peace.
Obama officially unveiled his doctrine on his first day in office. One is entitled to read much in the following short lines, as every line in major presidential speeches, above all on inauguration day, are carefully crafted, reviewed, and checked one more time, precisely to ensure that they send the right signal. Obama stated: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Soon thereafter Obama ordered a full blown review of the war he declared as the central front of his administration, the war raging in Afghanistan. He concluded that the US goal in Afghanistan was not nation building; the US was no longer seeking to turn Afghanistan into a shining democracy, to build a civil society, and lay the grounds for a free market economy. The new goal was strictly security related: "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda."
Obama stuck to the same theme in Cario by stating: "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
The Obama doctrine was tested during the uprising in Iran following the June elections. As long as the demonstrations were peaceful, Obama chose to keep a low profile. Only when the regime used violence to suppress the demonstrations did Obama speak up, stating "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people."
The new doctrine has been well received by those who recognize that our ability to re-engineer other societies is highly limited, and that our forces and resources are over extended, to put it mildly. That is, the doctrine makes sense on pragmatic grounds.
Still, one should not overlook that it also has a clear and strong normative underpinning. The observation that we value the right to life more than any other is reflected in the finding that in the criminal codes of all free nations, taking a life is punished much more severely than any other violation of rights. Moreover, ranking the value of life over most, if not all, other values reflects on the elementary but profound truth that the respect for all other rights depends on the sanctity of life. People who are shot dead gain little if they have right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and so on. In contrast, those whose lives are well protected can live to fight another day, to struggle to gain their other rights. Hence the profound value of promoting security first.
**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.
Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international affairs at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale, 2007). He can be contacted at icps@gwu.edu. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was correct in stating that "America is the leading purveyor of violence in the world today." It is worse now then when King spoke more than 40 years ago.
Obama's unvarnished promotion of America's murderous ways abroad simply on their own "merits" represents the bottom of the slippery slope on which American has been on throughout its history.
Those who believe that if America is to survive and become a good nation it must turn from its imperialist and militarist ways must firmly oppose this Administration's cynical, amoral policies.
I cannot fully identify myself as I am yet in the process of discovering who I am.
We never needed to steal Iraq's oil. We just needed them to sell it in dollars.
I believe we have this mind-set that we have to lead the world in every aspect. We're overall an incredibly strong country both economically and militarily. We can afford to step back and let the Germans, the French, the English and others pursue how to handle matters such as N korea and Iran. There will not be any different changes that would take place if we took a secondary role as opposed to leading.
Why is he telling Israel what to do then? I don't believe he asked the pal government to accept Israel's right to exist, but he did tell Israel to "reflect" and stop any growth of 'settlements'. Shouldn't he leave them both alone and let them work it out?
Let's face it, the real issue with the situation in Honduras has got nothing to do with what is in the best interests of the Honduran people and everything to do with limiting the reach of the "new bolivarian revolution" led by Chavez. The ultimate goal of course is the same old same old relentless push at control of resources...oil in particular.
President Bush's best allies in the middle east were the least democratic nations among their peers. At times, as in Palestine, the Bush White House went to the extent of fomenting a coup against the democratically elected government.
Bush supported democracy in name only: His actual interest in regime change had nothing to do with democracy.
From the looks of things...PRESIDENT Obama is about to ROCK the political universe as we know it!!!!
I wonder when something will actually get done that he takes responsibility for rather than leaving it all to Congress and playing it safe.
http://warmongerblog.com/