Nobel words from Obama: an insight into US Foreign Policy

(c) 2009 Bygon Era

If his West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan ‘surge’ was very technical and specific, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech was the opposite: philosophical and overarching, while providing a fascinating insight into his foreign policy agenda. However, both demonstrate the degree to which Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it. The tone and content of the Nobel speech may further dishearten the supporters who banked on him to be a man of greater peace, for this latest piece of oratory gave clear notice that further military interventions abroad are most certainly not off the agenda.

While a much of the speech contained a a few nods towards multilateralism and peaceful diplomacy, and went for the easy applause of stating opposition to torture, much of the language could be considered a gussied up version of ‘Bush-lite’. For instance, acknowledgment of the role and successes of the non-violent approaches of Gandhi and Martin Luther King were juxtaposed with bellicose rhetoric. “[As] a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world,” Obama said. “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.”

It was one of the hopes of people, both from within America and without (including those listening to the speech, who Charles Krauthammer called ‘European lefty twits’), that such language had died with the passing of the previous administration. Alas and alack, it would seem the same subjective nonsense about ‘Evil’, and short-sighted comparisons between Al-Qaeda and Nazism still abound in US policy-making, despite the clearly established fact that Al-Qaeda provides nowhere near the existential threat that Nazism did. The former’s tactics and agenda are more along the lines of a globalised IRA, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Furthermore, there were strong words for North Korea and Iran on the issue of nuclear proliferation:

“All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”

Again, more talk of ‘not standing idly by’. Sufficiently loose language to allow for diplomacy or military action. One cannot blame Obama for this – as President he should retain all options should America or her allies be attacked. However, words alone will not rebuild America’s legitimacy; actions, especially those in a time of crisis, will.

If this speech is anything to go by, Barack Obama is still falling into the same exceptionalist ‘America-first’ traps as his predecessors, despite the diplomatic language. The only way we will know which path Obama will follow is in the next crisis, when he may finally be confronted with a situation where he cannot please everyone.