Obama at the United Nations
Barack Obama gave a beautiful and surprisingly conciliatory speech last Tuesday at the UN, (something which occurred very soon after the eruption of anti-American protests in the Middle East) but which was, nevertheless, firm in defending American ideals.
Besides asking for tolerance, he also demanded consistency ("The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied") and union ("Together, we must work toward a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them").
The presidential candidate defined the positions in Washington (or, at least of his administration) and said that in the future, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not belong to those who turn their backs on the perspective of peace (which could be a light dig at the Republican candidate). He tried to paint a picture of a cup half full in the Middle East, pointing out that Libyans, Egyptians and Tunisians can now vote.
Having experienced being in the White House for nearly four years, he also acknowledged that democracy is more than just the right to vote.
I venture to say that it was one of the best speeches that Obama has ever made, recovering the persevering tone of the beginning of his first term in office, yet making it a bit more sober, being seasoned by his experience in power.
This does not mean that this development will lead to an evolution of foreign policy. His actions in this area always seem less that his words. After four years this seems to be the dominant perception around the world (especially in the Middle East).
The Pew Research Center, one of the most respected and impartial of such organizations in the United States, took a survey of global attitudes and captured an assessment of the American president. On two of the questions — if his foreign policy took into account the interests of other countries and if he had been fair in the question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — there is clear disappointment.
One note: The Brazilians are the most optimistic when questioned whether Obama took the interests of their country into account, with 55 percent responding affirmatively. Only the Chinese were also in the majority, with 51 percent for "yes," but I suspect the reason is the feud between the two.
Nevertheless, in most places — most of all in Europe — there is still support for his attempt at reelection. An exception is in the Middle East, where the general opinion is that the Democrat does not deserve another mandate. The question, however, was focused on Obama without mention of Mitt Romney as the alternative.
Left aside for the greater part of the campaign, foreign policy will be the theme of the third of three debates between Obama and Romney in Florida, on October 22.
Besides asking for tolerance, he also demanded consistency ("The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied") and union ("Together, we must work toward a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them").
The presidential candidate defined the positions in Washington (or, at least of his administration) and said that in the future, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not belong to those who turn their backs on the perspective of peace (which could be a light dig at the Republican candidate). He tried to paint a picture of a cup half full in the Middle East, pointing out that Libyans, Egyptians and Tunisians can now vote.
Having experienced being in the White House for nearly four years, he also acknowledged that democracy is more than just the right to vote.
I venture to say that it was one of the best speeches that Obama has ever made, recovering the persevering tone of the beginning of his first term in office, yet making it a bit more sober, being seasoned by his experience in power.
This does not mean that this development will lead to an evolution of foreign policy. His actions in this area always seem less that his words. After four years this seems to be the dominant perception around the world (especially in the Middle East).
The Pew Research Center, one of the most respected and impartial of such organizations in the United States, took a survey of global attitudes and captured an assessment of the American president. On two of the questions — if his foreign policy took into account the interests of other countries and if he had been fair in the question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — there is clear disappointment.
One note: The Brazilians are the most optimistic when questioned whether Obama took the interests of their country into account, with 55 percent responding affirmatively. Only the Chinese were also in the majority, with 51 percent for "yes," but I suspect the reason is the feud between the two.
Nevertheless, in most places — most of all in Europe — there is still support for his attempt at reelection. An exception is in the Middle East, where the general opinion is that the Democrat does not deserve another mandate. The question, however, was focused on Obama without mention of Mitt Romney as the alternative.
Left aside for the greater part of the campaign, foreign policy will be the theme of the third of three debates between Obama and Romney in Florida, on October 22.
Previous article![]( "Obama in Danger?")
