2009, the Year of Obama
Published in Ziare
(Romania) on 23 December 2009
by Arsene Cosmin Madalin (link to original)
(Romania) on 23 December 2009
by Arsene Cosmin Madalin (link to original)
Translated from
by Adriana Iotcov.
Edited by Patricia Simoni.
Eloquent as it was, the speech American President Barack Obama gave in Oslo upon his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize also managed to raise numerous questions regarding his role as United States commander-in-chief and his mission to protect and defend his country.
Going for an enigmatic speech is not exactly a bad strategy for a president, yet Obama’s approach fuels uncertainties surrounding his foreign policy strategy. Unlike Ronald Reagan, the last American president to make a visible mark on international relations and to use U.S. supremacy in order to bring his allies closer, Obama has chosen to regain the allies’ trust and U.S. position among other nations through diplomatic efforts. His goal, according to Stratfor [Strategic Forecasting, Inc., a global intelligence company] is to rebuild America’s power.
The deep similarities and differences between Reagan and Obama represent a starting point for our understanding of what the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency really meant.
Ronald Reagan became president after his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, was held responsible for the double crisis America was going through back then: an economic, as well as an image crisis, the latter having been brought on by the hostage crisis in the U.S. Embassy in Teheran (1979-1981) and the invasion of Russian troops in Afghanistan.
Similarly, Obama’s rise to power occurred during an economic crisis that began during George W. Bush’s presidency, which prejudiced other nations’ trust in the justness and limits of American foreign policy.
Another similarity is that neither managed to win the elections overwhelmingly. Reagan won, with 50.7 percent of the vote, while Obama won with 52.9 percent. Both presidents’ popularity declined as economic problems continued and they failed to honor promises regarding foreign policy.
In Iraq, Obama continues Bush’s policy of phased withdrawal, and he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. In Iran, he continues the strategy based on sanctions. As far as U.S. relations with Russia are concerned, although the anti-rocket shield was abandoned, Obama continues Bush’s policy and supports the admission of the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. As for the U.S. relations with China, Obama emphasizes the importance of economic relations, without bringing up human rights issues.
Obama’s strategy is centered on changing the way in which the U.S. is perceived globally, while, at the same time, implementing a foreign policy plan dictated by geopolitical realities. The problem is, according to Stratfor, that Obama’s peace-making intentions have already raised many expectations.
The continuity of a country’s foreign policy is just as important as a president’s trustworthiness and popularity. On the cusp of his first and second year as president, Obama’s strategy on foreign policy, if he has one, is still raising questions. The truth remains that Obama is slowly running out of time and needs to develop his strategy or invent one quickly.
Going for an enigmatic speech is not exactly a bad strategy for a president, yet Obama’s approach fuels uncertainties surrounding his foreign policy strategy. Unlike Ronald Reagan, the last American president to make a visible mark on international relations and to use U.S. supremacy in order to bring his allies closer, Obama has chosen to regain the allies’ trust and U.S. position among other nations through diplomatic efforts. His goal, according to Stratfor [Strategic Forecasting, Inc., a global intelligence company] is to rebuild America’s power.
The deep similarities and differences between Reagan and Obama represent a starting point for our understanding of what the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency really meant.
Ronald Reagan became president after his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, was held responsible for the double crisis America was going through back then: an economic, as well as an image crisis, the latter having been brought on by the hostage crisis in the U.S. Embassy in Teheran (1979-1981) and the invasion of Russian troops in Afghanistan.
Similarly, Obama’s rise to power occurred during an economic crisis that began during George W. Bush’s presidency, which prejudiced other nations’ trust in the justness and limits of American foreign policy.
Another similarity is that neither managed to win the elections overwhelmingly. Reagan won, with 50.7 percent of the vote, while Obama won with 52.9 percent. Both presidents’ popularity declined as economic problems continued and they failed to honor promises regarding foreign policy.
In Iraq, Obama continues Bush’s policy of phased withdrawal, and he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. In Iran, he continues the strategy based on sanctions. As far as U.S. relations with Russia are concerned, although the anti-rocket shield was abandoned, Obama continues Bush’s policy and supports the admission of the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. As for the U.S. relations with China, Obama emphasizes the importance of economic relations, without bringing up human rights issues.
Obama’s strategy is centered on changing the way in which the U.S. is perceived globally, while, at the same time, implementing a foreign policy plan dictated by geopolitical realities. The problem is, according to Stratfor, that Obama’s peace-making intentions have already raised many expectations.
The continuity of a country’s foreign policy is just as important as a president’s trustworthiness and popularity. On the cusp of his first and second year as president, Obama’s strategy on foreign policy, if he has one, is still raising questions. The truth remains that Obama is slowly running out of time and needs to develop his strategy or invent one quickly.
Next article![]( "The Obama Presidency Revived")
