Obama: Restoring Diplomacy to the Oval Office

Besides discussing the legacy of the war in Iraq, Eric addressed the state of the US national image abroad and what sort of effect the neoconservative Bush administration had on it. Eric’s previous post was filled with disdain for the UN, which, although “primarily funded by the US,” has become “a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is for going it alone.”

To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?

Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)

I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.

Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.

But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.

When you vote on November 4, think about that.

-Ian