When “Obamamania” Doesn’t Help
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 14 January 2010
by Georgiy Bovt (link to original)
(Russia) on 14 January 2010
by Georgiy Bovt (link to original)
Translated from
by Dinara Dussembaev.
Edited by Amy Wong.
Even before his inauguration, many thought that President-elect Obama would change the nature of international relations. Some expectations and odious methods of doing business in the international arena inherited from the Bush administration and the neo-conservatives were dismissed. Though these changes were neither surprising nor drastic, the new resident of the White House suddenly received a Nobel Peace Prize, a very premature action indeed.
Without reason, Europe is still hoping that Obama will inspire the transatlantic dialogue to be more cooperative with both sides listening to each other; the recent “favorite” European topic of so-called global warming still does not motivate the desired understanding and reaction from America. One can only hope that this year, during Europe’s unusually cold winter, the scare tactics will diminish.
With regards to U.S.-Russia relations, they are still far from being of the utmost importance in today’s America, just as in George W. Bush’s America. The “reset” was required only for a very limited range of international issues, in which both parties pragmatically decided to try to negotiate. The change of administrations in the United States and in Russia and, more importantly, the economic crisis have pushed aside the unnecessary pride stemming from this dialogue. One benefit, a relatively significant one, may have already arisen from these negotiations: the U.S. and Russia agreeing on a new pact on strategic nuclear weapons.
As for the other pillar of U.S. foreign policy, the alleged war on terror, which dominated the Bush administration, the Obama administration has nothing about which to boast. There seems to be no breakthrough in this war and no clear signs of victory, which is precisely why he was controversially awarded the Nobel Prize. For those who approved of and gave him that award, it seemed that the mere change in the tone of communication with the Islamic world from a new U.S. president would help curtail religious terrorism. The image of a black president, son of a Muslim, a child who attended a madrassa: this was supposed to embody the reconciliation of the Western world with the Islamic world. During the first days of his presidency, Obama has made a few concilitary gestures, clearing trying to demonstrate his readiness for dialogue. Was he heard? Is the other side willing to “reset?” It is difficult to answer these questions concretely. Perhaps the opposition perceived his flexibility as a manifestation of weakness in today’s America.
While Obama practiced conciliatory gestures, the camps of al Qaeda prepared and continues to prepare for future attacks. All of this occurs under a tacit “neutrality” and approval of the Arabic people and the ruling elites of many Muslim countries. In words, all condemn terrorism but cannot overcome it. Some may not want to strain relations with the Islamic forces in their own countries.
On Christmas Eve, a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Abdulmutallab, attempted to blow up a Northwestern Airlines flight. A pure coincidence, as he was able to board the plane in Amsterdam, perhaps even without a passport, with all of the imaginable and unimaginable failures by the Americans and other security services in place. Maybe they have relaxed, although immediately after the tragic events of September 11, airport security checks reached the stage of schizophrenia. Presumably now this schizophrenia will resume. Now the pre-departure “procedures” will take three hours and changing planes will take another two to three hours, especially in North America. In the wake of this failed terrorist attack, the government of Yemen hastily conducted visible operations against terrorists found in the country. It seems that prior to the attack, terrorist activities in Yemen were unheard of.
One way or another, Obama’s "reset message" has not been well received by the Islamists. Their tactics have not changed. It seems their objectives have not changed either: the Western world still must be destroyed. Regardless, he tries to be politically correct and God forbid he offends anyone’s trembling fanatically religious soul. Incidentally, the claim that terrorism has social roots maybe true but only partly. Abdulmutallab belonged to a wealthy family in his country and he has received the best of Western education. He followed the same path as the former Russian special forces policeman from Dagestan Madrid Begov, who, after retiring from the military, he went to "study" in Egypt and then joined the rebels. Begov was recently killed by the Russian military forces in a shootout in Makhachkala.
In essence, the same questions that the Bush administration was not able to answer have arisen. Where is the change of political correctness against the groups obviously hostile to your culture and traditions? Where is the line where this political correctness grows into a direct absolution of terrorism? Why is it because of some scumbags, good citizens must now be shown naked on newfangled scanners? Why should they compromise their comfort, time, freedom and rights and strenuously prove that they are not terrorists to obtain a visa from a country who is fighting against terror? Finally, most importantly, what other actions should the West take to no longer be considered an enemy by those who still do? Give them more money or cease to be themselves? What will it mean, to stop being themselves?
There are no answers here, since the exhaustive list of requirements has not been presented. Therefore, it is not clear with whom and what this “reset” should happen, which would have softened the approach for which Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Another follow up question: how many more of these "resets" will this pillar of modern political correctness will be able to withstand, with the assertion that terrorism has no nationality nor religious affiliation? We hope that he doesn’t fall quickly and disgracefully.
Without reason, Europe is still hoping that Obama will inspire the transatlantic dialogue to be more cooperative with both sides listening to each other; the recent “favorite” European topic of so-called global warming still does not motivate the desired understanding and reaction from America. One can only hope that this year, during Europe’s unusually cold winter, the scare tactics will diminish.
With regards to U.S.-Russia relations, they are still far from being of the utmost importance in today’s America, just as in George W. Bush’s America. The “reset” was required only for a very limited range of international issues, in which both parties pragmatically decided to try to negotiate. The change of administrations in the United States and in Russia and, more importantly, the economic crisis have pushed aside the unnecessary pride stemming from this dialogue. One benefit, a relatively significant one, may have already arisen from these negotiations: the U.S. and Russia agreeing on a new pact on strategic nuclear weapons.
As for the other pillar of U.S. foreign policy, the alleged war on terror, which dominated the Bush administration, the Obama administration has nothing about which to boast. There seems to be no breakthrough in this war and no clear signs of victory, which is precisely why he was controversially awarded the Nobel Prize. For those who approved of and gave him that award, it seemed that the mere change in the tone of communication with the Islamic world from a new U.S. president would help curtail religious terrorism. The image of a black president, son of a Muslim, a child who attended a madrassa: this was supposed to embody the reconciliation of the Western world with the Islamic world. During the first days of his presidency, Obama has made a few concilitary gestures, clearing trying to demonstrate his readiness for dialogue. Was he heard? Is the other side willing to “reset?” It is difficult to answer these questions concretely. Perhaps the opposition perceived his flexibility as a manifestation of weakness in today’s America.
While Obama practiced conciliatory gestures, the camps of al Qaeda prepared and continues to prepare for future attacks. All of this occurs under a tacit “neutrality” and approval of the Arabic people and the ruling elites of many Muslim countries. In words, all condemn terrorism but cannot overcome it. Some may not want to strain relations with the Islamic forces in their own countries.
On Christmas Eve, a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Abdulmutallab, attempted to blow up a Northwestern Airlines flight. A pure coincidence, as he was able to board the plane in Amsterdam, perhaps even without a passport, with all of the imaginable and unimaginable failures by the Americans and other security services in place. Maybe they have relaxed, although immediately after the tragic events of September 11, airport security checks reached the stage of schizophrenia. Presumably now this schizophrenia will resume. Now the pre-departure “procedures” will take three hours and changing planes will take another two to three hours, especially in North America. In the wake of this failed terrorist attack, the government of Yemen hastily conducted visible operations against terrorists found in the country. It seems that prior to the attack, terrorist activities in Yemen were unheard of.
One way or another, Obama’s "reset message" has not been well received by the Islamists. Their tactics have not changed. It seems their objectives have not changed either: the Western world still must be destroyed. Regardless, he tries to be politically correct and God forbid he offends anyone’s trembling fanatically religious soul. Incidentally, the claim that terrorism has social roots maybe true but only partly. Abdulmutallab belonged to a wealthy family in his country and he has received the best of Western education. He followed the same path as the former Russian special forces policeman from Dagestan Madrid Begov, who, after retiring from the military, he went to "study" in Egypt and then joined the rebels. Begov was recently killed by the Russian military forces in a shootout in Makhachkala.
In essence, the same questions that the Bush administration was not able to answer have arisen. Where is the change of political correctness against the groups obviously hostile to your culture and traditions? Where is the line where this political correctness grows into a direct absolution of terrorism? Why is it because of some scumbags, good citizens must now be shown naked on newfangled scanners? Why should they compromise their comfort, time, freedom and rights and strenuously prove that they are not terrorists to obtain a visa from a country who is fighting against terror? Finally, most importantly, what other actions should the West take to no longer be considered an enemy by those who still do? Give them more money or cease to be themselves? What will it mean, to stop being themselves?
There are no answers here, since the exhaustive list of requirements has not been presented. Therefore, it is not clear with whom and what this “reset” should happen, which would have softened the approach for which Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Another follow up question: how many more of these "resets" will this pillar of modern political correctness will be able to withstand, with the assertion that terrorism has no nationality nor religious affiliation? We hope that he doesn’t fall quickly and disgracefully.
Previous article![]( "U.S. Governance Just Got Even More Dysfunctional")
