Spotlight on Obama's Passivity
The United States is a country that seems condemned to eternal criticism. When it is not under attack for being too proactive in the world’s conflicts, it is accused of reacting too passively to far-off events. Obama’s failure to take action against Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea last week is currently being discussed all over the Europe, while the European Union itself has demonstrated once again that it has no power beyond the borders of its member countries. The situation is an embarrassment for the EU.
This is not the first time the U.S. president has faced criticism for reacting so cautiously to an international crisis. In 2009, he was attacked by the Republican Party for his support of deposed Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya. During the most recent presidential campaign, Mitt Romney accused him of giving in too easily to Russia over the Syrian conflict and failing to support the rebels. Obama also came under attack for failing to take a strong stand against Latin American politicians such as Hugo Chávez and Raúl Castro, and for being little more than a spectator in Israel and the Middle East. In other words, he has been lambasted in the international press to an extent that few Democrats have been before.
This time, he has been criticized for not daring to lead a “Western resistance” against “Russian bullying.” Always accused of “acting like the world’s police force,” the U.S. has reacted with almost complete indifference to the Ukrainian crisis, taking no action beyond a few minor diplomatic gestures that barely caused a ripple in Putin’s Russia. What happened was allowed to happen. But now the international community is demanding much more from Obama. It is demanding everything that many of his predecessors, such as the unforgettable George W. Bush, were reviled for. It is demanding that he intervene. Like in the movies, it is demanding that he save the world and defeat the bad guys. The problem is that the Americans seem to have grown tired of bailing us out and then being demonized for it. Meanwhile, Putin is rubbing his hands with glee.
This is not the first time the U.S. president has faced criticism for reacting so cautiously to an international crisis. In 2009, he was attacked by the Republican Party for his support of deposed Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya. During the most recent presidential campaign, Mitt Romney accused him of giving in too easily to Russia over the Syrian conflict and failing to support the rebels. Obama also came under attack for failing to take a strong stand against Latin American politicians such as Hugo Chávez and Raúl Castro, and for being little more than a spectator in Israel and the Middle East. In other words, he has been lambasted in the international press to an extent that few Democrats have been before.
This time, he has been criticized for not daring to lead a “Western resistance” against “Russian bullying.” Always accused of “acting like the world’s police force,” the U.S. has reacted with almost complete indifference to the Ukrainian crisis, taking no action beyond a few minor diplomatic gestures that barely caused a ripple in Putin’s Russia. What happened was allowed to happen. But now the international community is demanding much more from Obama. It is demanding everything that many of his predecessors, such as the unforgettable George W. Bush, were reviled for. It is demanding that he intervene. Like in the movies, it is demanding that he save the world and defeat the bad guys. The problem is that the Americans seem to have grown tired of bailing us out and then being demonized for it. Meanwhile, Putin is rubbing his hands with glee.