 |
| Oil painting by Claude Nougat (2005- Afghanistan) |
Of the two candidates, which is the better one? Obama we know, we are well aware that he "leads from behind". Some people try to make it sound negative but it really means several very positive things: he doesn't rush into a situation, he first watches what is happening, he listens to different opinions, he evaluates and takes a decision only after having duly reflected on it. He doesn't go at it alone, he likes to work in concert with America's allies, including within the United Nations. This is in line with what the international community expects of its most powerful member. He's a reliable partner and a thoughtful one who puts the people's needs and welfare upfront.
Romney, on the other hand, is a wild card. And he's shown that he understands precious little of either foreign policy or how to go about it. He accumulates gaffes (e.g. when he told Londoners that they'd made mistakes in organizing the Olympics) and he seems stuck back in time, in the Cold War. He views Russia and China as America's arch enemies. He's a staunch supporter of Israel - nothing unusual here, America traditionally supports Israel - but he's taken it one step further, saying that he saw no possibility of ever resolving the conflict with Palestine. Rejecting the two state solution from the outset means destroying any possibility of negotiation and being open to the idea of a never-ending war. Can Israel really afford a 100 years war and survive in the long term?
Aren't we all supposed to try and make our world peaceful?
Hot spots are multiplying, from Syria and Mali (both embroiled in civil war) to China and Japan contending for rocks in the South China Sea (but they do come with resources), and of course, Israel threatening Iran because of its nuclear pretensions and Iran angrily countering back. This has always been a warring planet - according to the Uppsala Conflict Data program and other United Nations sources, there are at anytime always at least some 20 on going conflicts around the world, and ever since the US started on its "global war on terror" (Iraq and Afghanistan) there is strong expectation that more wars will come over the next four years, notably against Iran . Refugee camps are expanding faster than Internet, and emergency aid has never been so active. Intolerance is on the rise, Muslims react ever more violently to pamphlets, films and cartoons satirizing their religion and Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, would like to see criticism of Muslims banned worldwide, saying "the West hasn’t recognized Islamophobia as a crime against humanity – it has encouraged it.”
With world population growing explosively and youth unemployment on the rise everywhere shutting out any chance at a decent living, it should come as no surprise that we are continually on the brink of war or actually thrown in it.
Which is precisely why we - the whole world - desperately need an American President who is a compassionate, balanced individual, not a warmonger.
Comments
Indeed, I think the Vietnam war explains to a large extent why the Democrats lost power to the Republicans and Reagan came in. Going to war usually doesn't help the incumbent. Also Bush father lost because he'd gone to war (1st Iraq war)If Bush son got re-elected it's not because he didn't go to war, on the contrary he did more than anyone (in Iraq and Afghanistan) but because he turned the tables on everyone: he quite simply terrorized the American people with his sophisticated system of terror alerts. People scrambled to vote him not because they liked him but because they were scared into it!
As to Obama's alledged incompetence, I'm afraid your viewpoint is rather an isolated one. The whole world thinks differently and surely so do more than half the Americans. The Clinton lady worked wonders and she's highly appreciated in the international community. Because that's WHO was responsible for American foreign policy, and of course, everything she did, she did it with the full backing of the President. If you consider that they were rivals in the primaries, it's amazing how well they have worked together. Obama is a remarkable handler of human beings. And that he should let the State Sec have a free hand and take her responsibilities is the way it should be. Obama is an excellent manager, he listens, he follows advice but he also goes ahead and decides on his own at the end of the day when he must. Again that is as it should be.
This said, I don't think Obama's record in foreign policy is perfect - good but not perfect: he should have gone out of Afghanistan sooner the way he did in Iraq. As soon as possible. Yet he didn't. He allowed the "surge" to occur. A big mistake, that, and a costly one. But his "leading from behind" in the Libya war was superb, it expressed a very well-thought out strategy, one that keeps America in the forefront without seeming to. Very subtle, that.
What can one say of Romney? Nothing! He has no experience at all and has so far demonstrated no diplomatic capacity whatsoever. His trip to Israel was a disaster. Actually he's frightening and over here in Europe, Jack I can tell you, we are truly worried. If Rommney wins, the whole world is gong to be in trouble and world peace will be in jeopardy! I can just see him starting a nuclear war with Iran!
And yes, Jo, I agree with you: Obama is a cool President, he stays in control at all times and that is so very important, indeed crucial to conduct foreign affairs successfully in our increasingly complex, challenging world. I hear that Clinton wants to leave and won't be around for a second round, more the pity. But I'm sure that Obama will be able to find another excellent State Secretary...
And yes, you're right, I did put my head in the lion's mouth! I know a lot of writers who don't, who refuse to talk about politics and I've never understood why. As writers, I feel we are talking about the human condition - indeed,in my humble opinion, the best writers are those who best express the poignancy in the human condition! And politics is part of it! Which is why I'm not afraid of talking politics...
But then in France, there's a long tradition for writers to turn political, starting with Rousseau and Voltaire, going on with Zola and Sartre...I'm not French (I'm Belgian) but I certainly have inherited that attitude (after all, French is my mother tongue and I'm culturally tied to France as much as I am to America and England...)
Your wrote there will never be peace in the Mid East & that it was Israels fault. Yes it is Israels fault that we Jews returned & built up our stolen homeland & we Jews are at fault for not all of us dying in the Nazi extermination camps thus solving the " Jewish Problem " No doubt you pay lip service to the ineffective int'l sanctions against Iran whilst buying time for the Islamo-Fascist regime in Iran to build its Nuclear bomb in order to carry out " the Final Solution part II"
Well I have Bad news for you ! We Jews are going to survive !
So tough luck & enjoy your life as the Muslims establish the Caliphate in western europe !