Obama’s Unwavering Commitment to the Far Right

In front of a group of young cadets, many of whom will be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke of the need to shape a world order in which diplomacy and the military might of the United States prevails.

All the major news agencies stressed Obama’s multilateral vision, in contrast to the unilateralism of George W. Bush and his people.

So, are we to define multilateralism as the call to pursue a common cause with the hegemonic power, to impose its conditions on diplomatic efforts aimed at perpetuating subjugation and the use of military force when this misnamed diplomacy fails in its goals?

Barack Obama spoke on Saturday before a group of young people whose names could appear in a few months on the list of the maimed or the dead “heroes of war,” or who could become one of those who, after being part of invading forces, return to their native land with the same anonymity with which they left, and in many cases to the poverty they were trying to leave behind.

Nothing he could have said would have given meaning to their sacrifice. He spoke of threats to U.S. national security and the need to stop terrorism.

He took advantage of the presence of these young people to direct a message to rulers and political leaders throughout the world in a call to provide what is necessary for the ongoing march of the U.S.’ imperialist adventures and those that will be undertaken in the future.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner endorses the oil and arms oligarchies and allows young people to be made into murderers and invaders — young people who should have done something else with their lives. He follows the tradition of his predecessors, and it is obvious that he does so without hesitation.

He makes references to past alliances, but does not speak of collaboration with certain governments involved in U.S.-backed wars, like the recently ousted government of Gordon Brown in the U.K.

He says the challenge of combating terrorism cannot be assumed solely by the United States, implying that the other armies of the world must unite with his country and follow the U.S.’ lead in the fight against terrorism.

Far from giving up the goal to reaffirm the hegemony of American power, Obama draws attention to himself by stating that his country is needed now more than ever.

Far from proposing a horizontal world order or even really a multilateral one, Obama tries to disguise what is really happening, making the imposition more brazen.

To present Obama as an agent of change is to disregard something clear and definitive: his commitment to the far right.