torsdag 24 september 2009

Kritiska röster om Obamas FN-tal

Efter att igår sett Obamas tal inför FN:s generalförsamling skrev jag att talet generellt (som inte var tillräckligt intressant för att sammanfatta i detalj) var väldigt internationalistiskt "med en stark tro på internationella relationer och gemensamma lagar som garant för internationell fred och säkerhet - inte amerikansk exceptionalism eller hegemoni. Ett tal omvärlden - som överlag inte anser att USA i sig själva är och har varit den bästa garanten för fred och säkerhet de senaste 60 åren - förmodligen tycker bra om - men som förmodligen kommer att väcka stark skepsis inom det andra partiet vars högra högerfalang fortfarande vill gå ur FN."

Talet gick naturligtvis heller inte de inhemska kritikerna förbi.
Peter Wehner skriver för Commentary Magazine:

"In the UN speech earlier today, President Obama once again succumbed to what has become almost a clinical addiction: criticizing the United States in front of an international audience.

In the latest stop on his American Apology Tour, Obama aimed his fire at America on the issue of global warming (“the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over”) and democracy (“in the past America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy”). And...went on to say this:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Where oh where to begin? How about by pointing out that America did not act unilaterally in Iraq or anywhere else during the Bush presidency. For example, and for the record, more than 35 countries gave crucial support—from the use of naval and air bases to help with intelligence and logistics to the deployment of combat units. President Bush answered the “unilateral” charge in his 2004 State of the Union address:

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

...Barack Obama, even though he is the leader of America, is constantly placing himself above it. His criticisms of our country are now part of a troubling routine, so much so that Obama is now winning the applause of people who genuinely hate America (like Fidel Castro, who complimented Obama for his “brave gesture” and “courage” in criticizing the United States at the UN).

Obama not only fails to strongly defend the United States; he is actually adding brush strokes to a portrait of our country that diminishes its achievements and standing. He seems unable or unwilling to speak out—in a heartfelt and passionate way—on its behalf.

...Perhaps Mr. Obama will come to understand that there is a problem when the president of the United States—an “inestimable jewel,” Lincoln called her—has harsher things to say about his own country than he does about many of the worst regimes on Earth.

It is all quite disturbing, and to have to say this about an American president almost makes me sick."

Michael Barone skriver på Real Clear Politics:

"In the early 1980s, while planning a vacation in Latin America, I went to bookstores to look for histories of the region. All I could find were Marxist tracts arguing that "the people" were exploited by greedy corporations and military dictators, all propped up by the United States.

Available literature on Latin America today includes much more sensible accounts. But some people, including Barack Obama, whose college thesis written in those years has never been made public, seem stuck in a time warp in which the United States is the bad guy.

...on foreign policy as his record emerges -- as he reverses himself on missile defense and perhaps on Afghanistan -- his motivating principle seems rooted in an analysis, common in his formative university years, that America has too often been on the side of the bad guys. The response has been to disrespect those who have been our friends and to bow to our enemies."

De kritiska rösterna talar för sig själva. Enda fördelen i sammanhanget var att Obamas tal var ett av hans tråkigare sådana, varför förmodligen inte särskilt många kommer att komma ihåg det. Vad Obama dock genom sina tal, och sina politiska handlingar börjat bevisa, är svagheten i den ideologi han baserar sin politik på: Obama personligen är fortfarande cool, sansad och framstår som en tänkande, smart person (vilket alla politiker verkligen inte gör). Felet kan således inte bero på hans personlighet (vilket för många var grunden för kritiken mot Reagan och George W. Bush) - det måste bero på hans ideologi. Det är inte säkert att alla kommer att fälla det omdömet - och ett presidentskap går inte att tydligt utvärdera förrän i efterhand. Men allt fler likheter med den unga president som 1980 förlorade mot en pensionerad cowboy-skådespelare börjar onekligen skönjas i Obamas presidentskap...

Se även tidigare inlägg:

Obamas tal inför FN:s generalförsamling 20090923

Inga kommentarer: