Obama’s Doctrine in Shape
After he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, all media favored this contradictory point: a man who deployed 30,000 troops was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a symbol of peace. He himself justified the duality and said, “Evils exist in the world, and war is inevitable at times."
According to Farda's “Record Website,” in his Oslo speech you could find more important matters than his regretful insistence on inevitable war. Obama’s speech in Oslo, Norway represents his evolving view of world diplomacy, including his effort to interact with countries like Iran, North Korea, and Sudan, [an action that is] generally [considered] his doctrine.
He said, “I know well that interaction with these countries might clash with some American principles, but I believe the way to change their behavior is to give them promising prospects in exchange for approval of changes."
In case diplomacy fails, he said, the U.S and other powers should devise tougher sanctions to be imposed upon the countries in question. This solution replaces the exercise of violence and is harsh enough to change their behavior. There are two solutions: interaction and sanctions. Neither has been crucially approved. When they are practiced, we can judge whether Obama’s doctrine is effective or not.
First, interaction is one of the main promises Obama made about foreign policy throughout his election campaign. Unlike the former U.S President George W. Bush, he pledged not to threaten countries with subversion and regime change for disagreeing with America. Instead, he would negotiate with them. In his first days of office, he launched direct talks over nuclear arsenals with Iran and North Korea and over human rights issues and with Myanmar and Sudan.
At the same time, he played down public criticism against the government’s assistance of which he needed for diplomatic issues. He refused to meet the Dalai Lama so as to please China. He called Egyptian president Hosni Mobarak “a power for stability.” He dispatched an envoy to talk to the Sudanese government accused of massacring people of Darfur.
Human Rights Watch (dog) chair, Kenneth Roth said in an interview, “Strain-free interaction by other countries is called capitulation." Clinton’s former state department spokesman, Jimmy Riyaeen writes in a Newsweek article, “Presidents once had to strengthen democratic values to gain political power." Obama’s administration only responds by words of patience. This, he says, agrees with [his] values; this is just different way in approach an interaction. Nobody has achieved good results and a better life through thick-headedness and bullish behavior. Give Americans a bit of a chance. Obama's policy of interaction has not yet reached a tangible outcome and sanctions exist in his doctrine.
However, the above outlook can hardly ever ensure the outcome. Sanctions have faced more failures than successes. It is hard to design sanctions that can change countries' viewpoints, and it is difficult to get other countries to approve the sanctions. Sanctions are also tricky to be dealt with outright.
The UN has adopted tough sanctions against North Korea, but this country is too secluded to witness a change in its status as a result of pressures and boycott. UN sanctions were imposed on Sudan, yet China is exempted from Sudan’s oil boycott thanks to its oil trade with Sudan. As a result, Obama’s administration decided to use a carrot policy and asked Sudan both to observe human rights in Darfur and to comply with peace agreements in the South. He has gained unremarkable success in this regard.
To prevent Iran from maintaining its nuclear activities of uranium enrichment, which paves the way for making bombs, Obama took advantage of the sanctions Hillary Clinton called “paralyzing sanctions." However, diplomats cautioned that sanctions will be difficult and will take time while there is no guarantee that the sanctions will remain effective.
He explained in West Point why he expanded the war in Afghanistan, calling it a special case. He further said it is impossible for America to deploy troops all over the world.
He put forth an interesting proposal to the world: America will interact with other countries diplomatically and multilaterally; nevertheless, it requires help from others to put the diplomacy into effect.
Ending its article, the above website [Record Website] adds that we should wait and see if Obama’s doctrine is effective.
According to Farda's “Record Website,” in his Oslo speech you could find more important matters than his regretful insistence on inevitable war. Obama’s speech in Oslo, Norway represents his evolving view of world diplomacy, including his effort to interact with countries like Iran, North Korea, and Sudan, [an action that is] generally [considered] his doctrine.
He said, “I know well that interaction with these countries might clash with some American principles, but I believe the way to change their behavior is to give them promising prospects in exchange for approval of changes."
In case diplomacy fails, he said, the U.S and other powers should devise tougher sanctions to be imposed upon the countries in question. This solution replaces the exercise of violence and is harsh enough to change their behavior. There are two solutions: interaction and sanctions. Neither has been crucially approved. When they are practiced, we can judge whether Obama’s doctrine is effective or not.
First, interaction is one of the main promises Obama made about foreign policy throughout his election campaign. Unlike the former U.S President George W. Bush, he pledged not to threaten countries with subversion and regime change for disagreeing with America. Instead, he would negotiate with them. In his first days of office, he launched direct talks over nuclear arsenals with Iran and North Korea and over human rights issues and with Myanmar and Sudan.
At the same time, he played down public criticism against the government’s assistance of which he needed for diplomatic issues. He refused to meet the Dalai Lama so as to please China. He called Egyptian president Hosni Mobarak “a power for stability.” He dispatched an envoy to talk to the Sudanese government accused of massacring people of Darfur.
Human Rights Watch (dog) chair, Kenneth Roth said in an interview, “Strain-free interaction by other countries is called capitulation." Clinton’s former state department spokesman, Jimmy Riyaeen writes in a Newsweek article, “Presidents once had to strengthen democratic values to gain political power." Obama’s administration only responds by words of patience. This, he says, agrees with [his] values; this is just different way in approach an interaction. Nobody has achieved good results and a better life through thick-headedness and bullish behavior. Give Americans a bit of a chance. Obama's policy of interaction has not yet reached a tangible outcome and sanctions exist in his doctrine.
However, the above outlook can hardly ever ensure the outcome. Sanctions have faced more failures than successes. It is hard to design sanctions that can change countries' viewpoints, and it is difficult to get other countries to approve the sanctions. Sanctions are also tricky to be dealt with outright.
The UN has adopted tough sanctions against North Korea, but this country is too secluded to witness a change in its status as a result of pressures and boycott. UN sanctions were imposed on Sudan, yet China is exempted from Sudan’s oil boycott thanks to its oil trade with Sudan. As a result, Obama’s administration decided to use a carrot policy and asked Sudan both to observe human rights in Darfur and to comply with peace agreements in the South. He has gained unremarkable success in this regard.
To prevent Iran from maintaining its nuclear activities of uranium enrichment, which paves the way for making bombs, Obama took advantage of the sanctions Hillary Clinton called “paralyzing sanctions." However, diplomats cautioned that sanctions will be difficult and will take time while there is no guarantee that the sanctions will remain effective.
He explained in West Point why he expanded the war in Afghanistan, calling it a special case. He further said it is impossible for America to deploy troops all over the world.
He put forth an interesting proposal to the world: America will interact with other countries diplomatically and multilaterally; nevertheless, it requires help from others to put the diplomacy into effect.
Ending its article, the above website [Record Website] adds that we should wait and see if Obama’s doctrine is effective.
(dog)? Where does that come from?