Tweet
OBAMA'S NOBEL GESTURES
by James Stonebridge
Gair Rhydd
Oct 16, 2009
After Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, James Stonebridge
looks at US foreign policy. Did he deserve it?
Upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last week, Barack Obama modestly
stated that he was 'surprised and deeply humbled' to have been awarded
the honour. As for the rest of the world, reaction to the news ranged
from endorsement to outright bewilderment. For those aligned with the
latter view, the question on their lips was, 'what has he actually
done for world peace?'.
In his statement, President Obama was keen to play down any right to
the award, instead preferring to cite it as 'a call to action'. For
many of his opponents though, there is growing criticism of a
government that is said to do plenty of 'calling', but very little
'acting'.
The Prize is based upon a desire and commitment to reduce global
animosity. But has the direction on foreign policy taken by the
President deviated in any way from the Republican administration
prior to him?
In Afghanistan, Obama is thought to be considering the greater use of
political methods in order to end the conflict. Democrat officials,
such as the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibb, have been talking
of the potential re-integration of the Taliban into Afghan politics,
with the aim of drawing them away from the battlefield.
Gibb recently stated that discussions with moderate members of the
Taliban could be a possibility, since they are 'not in the same group'
as the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda. The conflict in the region
is unrelenting though, and there are no signs as yet that President
Obama has made anymore progress than President Bush did in ending
the war and securing peace.
Then there is Iran, and its insatiable quest to obtain nuclear
weapons. Obama was very active at the recent G20 summit in trying
to persuade others, in particular China and Russia, into adopting a
tougher stance against Iran. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State,
wil into Moscow as part of her European tour in order to press the
Russians into threatening sanctions.
Obama has stressed that he is keen to engage in talks with the
Iranians, stating that to continue their nuclear programme is to take a
long stroll in the global political wilderness. The President's stance
has led to a degree of co-operation with Iran, who is now apparently
open to talks, as well as foreign nuclear inspections. The emphasis
upon dialogue is a deviation from the harder line previously taken
by President Bush, who was keener on using the 'stick'.
A triumph of US foreign policy has been the recent agreement between
Armenia and Turkey, which entails the opening up of their joint
border for the first time since 1993. This is a significant coup
for Hillary Clinton, who brokered the deal on the behalf of her
government. Clinton has also been in Northern Ireland on her European
tour, which emphasises Obama's commitment for the US to continue to
act as an intermediary between Republicans and Unionists. This is a
familiar role for the US.
The foreign policy achievements of the new President have been few
since he took office in January and he has yet to adopt any substantial
changes to US tactics.
There is a reason for this however; he simply has not had the chance to
change anything yet. It is consequently unsurprising that the decision
of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is seen by many people as being
inexplicable. Furthermore, Obama's modesty is believable, and you
can imagine that he perhaps would have preferred to have accepted the
award a few years down the line, having achieved tangible world peace.
by James Stonebridge
Gair Rhydd
Oct 16, 2009
After Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, James Stonebridge
looks at US foreign policy. Did he deserve it?
Upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last week, Barack Obama modestly
stated that he was 'surprised and deeply humbled' to have been awarded
the honour. As for the rest of the world, reaction to the news ranged
from endorsement to outright bewilderment. For those aligned with the
latter view, the question on their lips was, 'what has he actually
done for world peace?'.
In his statement, President Obama was keen to play down any right to
the award, instead preferring to cite it as 'a call to action'. For
many of his opponents though, there is growing criticism of a
government that is said to do plenty of 'calling', but very little
'acting'.
The Prize is based upon a desire and commitment to reduce global
animosity. But has the direction on foreign policy taken by the
President deviated in any way from the Republican administration
prior to him?
In Afghanistan, Obama is thought to be considering the greater use of
political methods in order to end the conflict. Democrat officials,
such as the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibb, have been talking
of the potential re-integration of the Taliban into Afghan politics,
with the aim of drawing them away from the battlefield.
Gibb recently stated that discussions with moderate members of the
Taliban could be a possibility, since they are 'not in the same group'
as the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda. The conflict in the region
is unrelenting though, and there are no signs as yet that President
Obama has made anymore progress than President Bush did in ending
the war and securing peace.
Then there is Iran, and its insatiable quest to obtain nuclear
weapons. Obama was very active at the recent G20 summit in trying
to persuade others, in particular China and Russia, into adopting a
tougher stance against Iran. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State,
wil into Moscow as part of her European tour in order to press the
Russians into threatening sanctions.
Obama has stressed that he is keen to engage in talks with the
Iranians, stating that to continue their nuclear programme is to take a
long stroll in the global political wilderness. The President's stance
has led to a degree of co-operation with Iran, who is now apparently
open to talks, as well as foreign nuclear inspections. The emphasis
upon dialogue is a deviation from the harder line previously taken
by President Bush, who was keener on using the 'stick'.
A triumph of US foreign policy has been the recent agreement between
Armenia and Turkey, which entails the opening up of their joint
border for the first time since 1993. This is a significant coup
for Hillary Clinton, who brokered the deal on the behalf of her
government. Clinton has also been in Northern Ireland on her European
tour, which emphasises Obama's commitment for the US to continue to
act as an intermediary between Republicans and Unionists. This is a
familiar role for the US.
The foreign policy achievements of the new President have been few
since he took office in January and he has yet to adopt any substantial
changes to US tactics.
There is a reason for this however; he simply has not had the chance to
change anything yet. It is consequently unsurprising that the decision
of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is seen by many people as being
inexplicable. Furthermore, Obama's modesty is believable, and you
can imagine that he perhaps would have preferred to have accepted the
award a few years down the line, having achieved tangible world peace.