Obama Already Setting Tone for US Foreign Policy ...
Unless he blows it today in Berlin, Barack Obama has made a successful debut on the world stage. Rarely has an American presidential candidate walked taller abroad than he.
Poised, polished and well-informed, he has marched through the political minefields of Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. He looked and sounded presidential ("as president, I would ..."; "as commander-in-chief, it'd be my job to ...").
Compare this with John McCain's visits to Ottawa, Iraq and Europe, which created little excitement.
Think back also to the disastrous 1979 trip of Tory leader Joe Clark to Asia and the Middle East. Designed to establish him as PM-in-waiting, it stamped him instead as a bumbler, his staff losing luggage and he himself littering the landscape with ill-advised comments.
With Obama, we are witnessing a rare phenomenon. Long before the election and even before becoming the Democratic nominee, he's coming across as president-presumptive, and already setting the tone and direction of U.S. foreign policy.
Almost overnight, his agenda - pull out of Iraq, concentrate on Afghanistan - is accepted wisdom.
George W. Bush, after consistently characterizing a withdrawal as a sop to terrorists, has agreed to "a general time horizon" for leaving Iraq.
It helped Obama that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pulled the rug from under Bush - first by refusing to sign an open-ended agreement to let American troops stay on indefinitely and then backing Obama's 16-month timetable.
Obama's long-standing call for engaging Iran has also been adopted. After insisting for years on isolating Iran, Bush sent a diplomat to Saturday's multi-party talks in Geneva.
Never before has a lame-duck president looked so lame and hobbled his party's presidential candidate as much as Bush has McCain.
Not all of Obama's policy positions are perfect, obviously.
His call for an additional 10,000 American troops for Afghanistan, welcomed by Canada and other NATO allies, is not a long-term solution. A military surge is less likely to work there than in Iraq. Just as he is advocating a political solution for Iraq, he needs one for Afghanistan - in fact, more so.
To the West, more troops mean more resources to beat back the Taliban. To many Afghans, however, more Western troops mean more of a foreign military stranglehold on their country and, more immediately, more civilian deaths.
NATO troops, especially Americans, have lately been involved in a steady stream of incidents in which civilians have been killed.
Some of these incidents don't even make it to our media and, when they do, dutifully echo NATO claims that so many "militants" or "Taliban" were killed. Within hours comes word that either all or many of the victims had been civilians. This is fuelling widespread anger and eroding NATO's legitimacy.
Similarly, Obama's position, repeated on this trip, that he'd bomb Pakistani hideouts of the Taliban is a recipe for igniting more anti-Americanism in Pakistan, which, in turn, will make it nearly impossible for the newly elected, still teetering, government to do much.
On Israel, Obama's previous comment that Jerusalem should be Israel's "undivided" capital is the same one that got Clark into much trouble. Since then, the governments in both Washington and, lately, Ottawa have become more pro-Israeli. But the trend elsewhere in the world has been in the opposite direction.
If Obama is to be the change leader that he aspires to be, not only domestically but across the world to restore America's good name, it is essential that he be more even-handed. That would be in Israel's long-term interest as well.
Haroon Siddiqui's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
(c) CopyrightToronto Star 1996-2008
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Unless he blows it today in Berlin, Barack Obama has made a successful debut on the world stage. Rarely has an American presidential candidate walked taller abroad than he.
Poised, polished and well-informed, he has marched through the political minefields of Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. He looked and sounded presidential ("as president, I would ..."; "as commander-in-chief, it'd be my job to ...").
Compare this with John McCain's visits to Ottawa, Iraq and Europe, which created little excitement.
Think back also to the disastrous 1979 trip of Tory leader Joe Clark to Asia and the Middle East. Designed to establish him as PM-in-waiting, it stamped him instead as a bumbler, his staff losing luggage and he himself littering the landscape with ill-advised comments.
With Obama, we are witnessing a rare phenomenon. Long before the election and even before becoming the Democratic nominee, he's coming across as president-presumptive, and already setting the tone and direction of U.S. foreign policy.
Almost overnight, his agenda - pull out of Iraq, concentrate on Afghanistan - is accepted wisdom.
George W. Bush, after consistently characterizing a withdrawal as a sop to terrorists, has agreed to "a general time horizon" for leaving Iraq.
It helped Obama that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pulled the rug from under Bush - first by refusing to sign an open-ended agreement to let American troops stay on indefinitely and then backing Obama's 16-month timetable.
Obama's long-standing call for engaging Iran has also been adopted. After insisting for years on isolating Iran, Bush sent a diplomat to Saturday's multi-party talks in Geneva.
Never before has a lame-duck president looked so lame and hobbled his party's presidential candidate as much as Bush has McCain.
Not all of Obama's policy positions are perfect, obviously.
His call for an additional 10,000 American troops for Afghanistan, welcomed by Canada and other NATO allies, is not a long-term solution. A military surge is less likely to work there than in Iraq. Just as he is advocating a political solution for Iraq, he needs one for Afghanistan - in fact, more so.
To the West, more troops mean more resources to beat back the Taliban. To many Afghans, however, more Western troops mean more of a foreign military stranglehold on their country and, more immediately, more civilian deaths.
NATO troops, especially Americans, have lately been involved in a steady stream of incidents in which civilians have been killed.
Some of these incidents don't even make it to our media and, when they do, dutifully echo NATO claims that so many "militants" or "Taliban" were killed. Within hours comes word that either all or many of the victims had been civilians. This is fuelling widespread anger and eroding NATO's legitimacy.
Similarly, Obama's position, repeated on this trip, that he'd bomb Pakistani hideouts of the Taliban is a recipe for igniting more anti-Americanism in Pakistan, which, in turn, will make it nearly impossible for the newly elected, still teetering, government to do much.
On Israel, Obama's previous comment that Jerusalem should be Israel's "undivided" capital is the same one that got Clark into much trouble. Since then, the governments in both Washington and, lately, Ottawa have become more pro-Israeli. But the trend elsewhere in the world has been in the opposite direction.
If Obama is to be the change leader that he aspires to be, not only domestically but across the world to restore America's good name, it is essential that he be more even-handed. That would be in Israel's long-term interest as well.
Haroon Siddiqui's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
(c) CopyrightToronto Star 1996-2008
Unless he blows it today in Berlin, Barack Obama has made a successful debut on the world stage. Rarely has an American presidential candidate walked taller abroad than he.
Poised, polished and well-informed, he has marched through the political minefields of Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. He looked and sounded presidential ("as president, I would ..."; "as commander-in-chief, it'd be my job to ...").
Compare this with John McCain's visits to Ottawa, Iraq and Europe, which created little excitement.
Think back also to the disastrous 1979 trip of Tory leader Joe Clark to Asia and the Middle East. Designed to establish him as PM-in-waiting, it stamped him instead as a bumbler, his staff losing luggage and he himself littering the landscape with ill-advised comments.
With Obama, we are witnessing a rare phenomenon. Long before the election and even before becoming the Democratic nominee, he's coming across as president-presumptive, and already setting the tone and direction of U.S. foreign policy.
Almost overnight, his agenda - pull out of Iraq, concentrate on Afghanistan - is accepted wisdom.
George W. Bush, after consistently characterizing a withdrawal as a sop to terrorists, has agreed to "a general time horizon" for leaving Iraq.
It helped Obama that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pulled the rug from under Bush - first by refusing to sign an open-ended agreement to let American troops stay on indefinitely and then backing Obama's 16-month timetable.
Obama's long-standing call for engaging Iran has also been adopted. After insisting for years on isolating Iran, Bush sent a diplomat to Saturday's multi-party talks in Geneva.
Never before has a lame-duck president looked so lame and hobbled his party's presidential candidate as much as Bush has McCain.
Not all of Obama's policy positions are perfect, obviously.
His call for an additional 10,000 American troops for Afghanistan, welcomed by Canada and other NATO allies, is not a long-term solution. A military surge is less likely to work there than in Iraq. Just as he is advocating a political solution for Iraq, he needs one for Afghanistan - in fact, more so.
To the West, more troops mean more resources to beat back the Taliban. To many Afghans, however, more Western troops mean more of a foreign military stranglehold on their country and, more immediately, more civilian deaths.
NATO troops, especially Americans, have lately been involved in a steady stream of incidents in which civilians have been killed.
Some of these incidents don't even make it to our media and, when they do, dutifully echo NATO claims that so many "militants" or "Taliban" were killed. Within hours comes word that either all or many of the victims had been civilians. This is fuelling widespread anger and eroding NATO's legitimacy.
Similarly, Obama's position, repeated on this trip, that he'd bomb Pakistani hideouts of the Taliban is a recipe for igniting more anti-Americanism in Pakistan, which, in turn, will make it nearly impossible for the newly elected, still teetering, government to do much.
On Israel, Obama's previous comment that Jerusalem should be Israel's "undivided" capital is the same one that got Clark into much trouble. Since then, the governments in both Washington and, lately, Ottawa have become more pro-Israeli. But the trend elsewhere in the world has been in the opposite direction.
If Obama is to be the change leader that he aspires to be, not only domestically but across the world to restore America's good name, it is essential that he be more even-handed. That would be in Israel's long-term interest as well.
Haroon Siddiqui's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
(c) CopyrightToronto Star 1996-2008