Posted on 25 Jun 2009 at 3:11pm By Gavino
"Er, Obama calling..."
When is all this pussyfooting going to stop? At some point the western media needs to be a little more discerning – critical even – of President Obama’s foreign policy.
Having excoriated George W. Bush for most of his presidency, does the western media simply feel it has to be overly nice to his successor just to even things out? Will this demonstrate what nice guys and gals they really are?
Or are they responding defensively to Obama’s pacifism, praising a weak leader to disguise their own fears of vulnerability when overwhelming ambivalence resides in the White House?
When Russia invaded Georgia at the time of the U.S. election campaign last year, it took Candidate Obama three days to formulate some sort of response. First he blamed both sides, then he said it was a matter for the United Nations Security Council and then, after an insider pointed out that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and would be able to veto any resolution, he adopted the position John McCain had put forward three days earlier.
The point here is not the adequacy or otherwise of the ultimate response but the time it took to develop it. We were warned.
Now, with riots in Iran over a phony election, Obama is again hesitating. Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden have both let it be known that they have urged the President to use strong language to denounce the obvious election fraud. People can debate whether or not this is appropriate but the point again is that President Obama has been shown to be a ditherer. And a hesitant foreign policy is a weak foreign policy.
Yet the London Times has managed to turn this absence of activity into a positive, characterizing it as a deliberate display of caution. The UK’s own leader, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, meanwhile, is praised for expressing Britain’s anger. Whatever happened to consistency? Why the free pass?
True, President Obama has displayed some leadership in traveling around the world and preaching his message. But, as the cliché goes, actions speak louder than words. The growing suspicion is that Obama doesn’t have the inclination to do more than talk on international issues. He lectures and he lectures and he lectures… That is his strategy. Is there just one club in the bag?
America’s power comes from its ability to act and its intermittent willingness to do so. This administration is looking like an intermission.
Ironically, as the President has moved forward quickly with his domestic agenda, he has claimed that he doesn’t have time to run U.S. car companies because he is so busy dealing with international affairs. Doing what, exactly? Pontificating?
Far from the conscious pursuit of what the London Times calls “Soft Power”, this administration appears to have no strategy to deal with any international crisis. Obama seems to fear the scrutiny, criticism and blame that could erode his international popularity if he actually does something.
The western media will have to decide whether this vacillation is above critical comment.
.png&w=16&h=16&zc=T&q=95)
