Obama won not just because he’s not George Bush, and not just because he makes nice speeches. He has changed US foreign policy in important and tangible ways.
The stunning decision by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to give its annual award to President Barack Obama shows just how starved the world is for constructive, positive U.S. leadership. Obama has redirected the immense power of this country from unilateral, bullying, jingoistic militarism to multilateral engagement.
Lots of people around the world - from Hugo Chavez to the oh-so-sophisticated anti-American elites that populate the chic drawing rooms in Hampstead and Islington and editorial conference rooms in London, Paris and (occasionally) Washington - sneer at the very idea of American leadership. However, many leaders and people around the world fervently do want to have an America that is a partner, a helper, and yes, a leader.
In remarks at the White House Friday morning, Obama said he was surprised and humbled, and said he didn’t believe he deserved to be part of the Nobel pantheon that has included men and women such as Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa.
He also Obama spoke of his goal of achieving a nuclear-free world. When he outlined that goal in a speech in Prague in April he was immediately derided as naïve by perpetually pessimistic critics. Apparently the Nobel Committee thought otherwise.
“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics,” the Committee wrote, saying it “has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
Obama won not just because he’s not George Bush, and not just because he makes nice speeches. He has changed US foreign policy in important and tangible ways.
Lets take Iran: After years of American presidents refusing to allow meaningful diplomatic contact with Iran, Obama campaigned on a promise to meet with the Iranians without preconditions. For this, he was derided by his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, and later by the Republican nominee John McCain.
But Obama chose to open talks on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program - backed up by firm warnings of sanctions if the Iranians wouldn’t play ball. The result? In Geneva earlier this month Iran, the US and its allies, Russia and China agreed to a framework for UN inspections of Tehran’s nuclear facilities, agreed in principal to ship its enriched uranium overseas for peaceful processing, and agreed to continue with more meetings. A big win for Obama’s approach and the first positive development in US-Iranian relations in years, pushing the prospect of a military clash in the Gulf back from center stage.
How about Russia? Resetting the relationship is still a work in progress, but Obama is working diligently to improve rapport with President Dimitri Medvedev, while keeping arm’s length from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He decided to move away from the politically provocative, technically suspect and strategically foolish Bush plan to station a “missile defense shield” in eastern Europe. The result? Dramatic lessening of tensions between the two nuclear-armed behemoths and possible dividends in the form of Russian support for US policy toward Iran.
The Middle East? Yes, it’s true he hasn’t solved the conundrum in his first nine months. But he has made pushing for peace between Israelis and Palestinians the centerpiece of his foreign policy, has visited the area, hosted talks and meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, sent a high level special envoy to engage in sustained, patient diplomacy, and, by signaling to Israel it no longer has the carte blanche enjoyed under Bush, restored the US’s position as a credible broker in the process.
His June speech in Cairo was a watershed moment in relations between the US and the Muslim and Arab worlds. Mutual respect and tolerance are now the keywords, not suspicion, hostility and exploitation.
Afghanistan presents Obama with a difficult and fateful choice. He is deliberating, taking advice from all of his best national security, military and diplomatic staff. Unlike his predecessor, he is not rushing into a decision based on a “gut” instinct, or immediately acquiescing to whatever his generals ask. We do not yet know how the situation in Afghanistan will evolve. But it’s interesting to note that on the very day the Nobel Committee awarded the prize, the Pakistani Taliban was busy sending another suicide bomber to murder and maim dozens of innocent people in a crowded marketplace in Peshawar. Let’s not forget who - or what - the enemies of peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan really are.
The Taliban isn’t very happy about Obama’s prize. “We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP news agency.
“He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.”
The Taliban are not alone. The US Republican party chimed in with remarkably similar criticism. "It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights," scoffed Party Chairman Michael Steele.
"The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’" Steele lamented.
Maybe Zabihullah Mujahid and Michael Steele should get together one of these days. I think they would have a fine time discussing everything they hate about Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
