Thursday, 31st July 2008
What is Barack cooking?
At a time where most of the world seems to be on a summer siesta, US Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has provided us with a major talking point – a visit to Europe. While rival candidate John McCain is back at home trying to gain popularity points from the nation’s voters, Obama was here in Europe discussing the pressing issues that the world is currently facing. However, was it a case of Obama doing the right thing or was he jumping the gun?
Let’s face it, after eight years of having a Republican President in George W. Bush, the Americans want change. This is why the democrats attained most of the Congress votes around two years ago, and this is why Obama is seen as a popular potential President over and above McCain.
While this is all positive for the 46-year-old senator from Illinois, his visit was treated like he already was the new President of the USA, as if victory come November 4, 2008, is all but assured. Needless to say, the probability is that he will be elected, but there again; one can never predict what the electorate will decide on the day of asking.
Assuming that Barack is elected President, such a visit can only serve to enhance his credentials amongst Europeans sceptic of America. First and foremost, the fact that he visited Germany was very significant. It is no secret that during President Bush’s reign, many saw American relations limited, most of the time, to the United Kingdom; indeed, Bush and ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair had a very good professional relationship.
While Gordon Brown is now slowly withdrawing his troops from the war in Iraq, Barack will obviously still look to keep Britain as an important pawn in America’s show. However, his visit to Germany might seem to indicate that he is looking to foster better relations with other European states who might have grown sceptic of America’s foreign policy over the years; this despite the fact that various ex-Presidents of the United States, such as John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, have previously given important speeches in Berlin.
On the other hand, Obama could come in for some criticism for not fully focusing on the task that lies ahead of him. While trans-Atlantic dialogue is important because one of the most important factors of American governance is its relationship with Europe, the fact remains that no Europeans will be voting in Obama as the next President of the USA – only American nationals will. Therefore, shouldn’t Obama be looking to promote his political vision in his homeland before he works on creating an important link with Europe?
That doesn’t seem to be his strategy. On the contrary, it seems to be the reverse of what his rival candidate McCain is doing – Obama is looking to win the popularity vote through the enhancement of international relations, something which he probably believes will greatly, in turn, help his chances of getting elected. In short, Barack does not only want to be a President for his people, he wants to be an established and important world leader; something that the current incumbent seems to have lacked. While Senator Obama has focused on the international arena, President Bush and fellow Republican McCain have placed America as the centre focus. In 2008, when the world needs to be united more than ever, this is simply unacceptable.
Barack might indeed be jumping the gun, but he is definitely doing the right thing.
Matthew Borg is a member of Insite – The Student Media Organisation. www.insite.org.mt.
RSS
Comments
With a bit of research, maybe the British - American link will be my next blog! ;)
Jokes apart, you're right in saying that the statement is controversial to say the least, but may I point out that it is far from fact - it is an opinion. Such fantastic relations though between the two countries - one a current world superpower and one an ex-world superpower - cannot make you help but think that way.
At least that's how I see it. Of course, as you rightly pointed out, such a statement is open to interpretation and is also right to be criticised.
Obama went to Europe to build up his foreign policy credentials and to prove that he can make an excellent commander in chief - as well as his wish to mend the ties between the two sides of the Atlantic.
One other slight criticism is this - you have said that Obama is looking to build international consensus, while Bush and McCain both want to keep the U.S. as the prime focus. To the best of my knowledge, the international arena is rarely a scene of genuine benevolence.
On the whole though, you raise interesting points Mr. Borg. Good post.
In any case, I'll stop calling George Bush an 'America only President' when he learns where Mongolia is, and apologizes for the countless mistakes he's made when it comes to foreign policy.
No use crying over spilt milk though - let's look ahead. Barack Obama may not be the foreign policy expert everyone expects a head of state to be. He has, however, shown a critical feature that marks him out from previous leaders - Obama look genuinly interested, and very open to understand what happens beyond US shores, even if, I insist, he may not be an expert at it.
In any case, he has enough time to learn. Better a learner with an open mind than a deaf, mute, and dumb (excuse the pun) expert.
"Indeed Mr. Bush's legacy shall be his massively controversial invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan before it; hardly what I would call an 'America Only' President isn't it?"
I have to disagree here; if my statement is factually incorrect than this is a case of 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Couldn't there be even the most remote of possibilities that Bush's invasion of Iraq was really a case of the Americans wanting to have a legitimate excuse to try find oil? Yes, of course, Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer par excellence, but really now: did America have any business interfering into Iraq's affairs? As for Afghanistan, of course, it was a measure of attack for what happened on 9/11... America not being the centre focus in both cases? I beg to differ.
Do we have any guarantee that this won't be the case with Obama? Definitiely not. However, can we say McCain isn't going to follow in his predecessor's footsteps? With the way he's going at the moment, that's not the case either. I'm sorry, I'd rather see a fresh face in Obama as President, rather than a chip off the old block.
- I believe that the above comment is factually incorrect and is thus out of place both whether one agrees or not with the policies of President Bush and John McCain. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are often criticized for being too heavy handed with rogue states. Indeed Mr. Bush's legacy shall be his massively controversial invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan before it; hardly what I would call an 'America Only' President isn't it?
As for Barak Obama, personally I think Mr. Obama is all talk but no action. The man may be a brilliant orator and a good PR guru or rather he may have in his employment the better PR Expert and the better Speech Writer but he just isn't offering the change we can believe in. He is offering the change with no proof to back it up.!
America needs experience, America needs John McCain.