Mr. Barack Obama, the first Afircan-American and the 44th President of the United States, has finally made it to the White House thus ending the debate regarding the readiness of America to elect a non-white President. The unprecedented turnout during the Election Day is a signal of his support and strength which makes his ascendancy, full of euphoria, unseen since Kennedy’s election to the presidency.
Mr. Obama has won the election riding on his slogan and promise for a change that America needs at this hour to replenish its poor record which has diminished U.S. credibility and its ability to lead the world due to a weakening economy and two successive terms of outgoing President Bush, whose contempt for international law and rash behaviour has largely isolated U.S. from its tested friends as well as greatly polarized the world in a way not witnessed since the Cold war and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Mr. Obama must work fervently to restore the pride of a superpower, which had the moral authority to lead the post-Communist world, built upon the strength of its capitalist system, which is itself feared to be on the verge of collapse and is already being studied as a failed model by economists who are revisiting the socialist model and appreciating the strengths of a hybrid system such as China’s, which has survived the economic plague of the capitalist models adopted by countries influenced by the success of U.S. and the other Western countries based on the capitalist economy.
The credibility of the U.S. has suffered in other ways as well, pertinently its role as a guarantor of peace and arbitrator during conflicts due to its failure to play the role of a neutral player. It is impossible to perceive a settlement for the Palestinians in the Middle East in the immediate future due to the pro-Israeli stance embraced by the Bush administration and refusal to exert pressure on Israel to settle its territorial disputes, most importantly over Golan Heights vis a vis Syria and the dispute with Egypt over territory seized during the 1967 war. Worse still, the U.S. administration acquiesced in the Israeli settlement and demolishing of the Palestinians’ houses in additional territory and also nodded with approval over the grueling bombing of Beirut by the Jewish state which was an unjustified response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, which were never recovered despite the barbaric bombing and killing of innocent civilians. The blockade of Gaza is yet another inhumane act of Israel, supported by the U.S. in a rather illogical manner.
The nuclear standoff with Iran and Bush’s personal hate for the Islamic nation has also not met with much approval in the world, with the European leaders preferring a ‘dialogue’ approach as opposed to the diplomacy of issuing threats and pleasing the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and intimidating Iran by talks of pre-emptive strikes on the ‘suspected nuke sites’ in that country. It is not surprising that the U.S. has been unable to garner much support over this mode to resolve this issue given its past history and the false case it made out of Iraq’s nuclear capability to support an invasion, which had been planned regardless of the fact that whether Iraq possessed such weapons or not. In fact, when Mr. Powell, the then Secretary of State was making a case in the U.N. for supporting the war, the U.S. intelligence and White House officials were already aware that there were no such weapons, as Mr. Ron Suskind, a prominent journalist disclosed earlier this year in his book.
The Iraqi leadership is demanding a quicker withdrawal then previously anticipated and Mr. Obama’s pledge to withdraw would therefore increase the possibility of disengagement of the U.S. forces from the region in the foreseeable future. The Iraqis, like most Arabs are highly patriotic and fiercely independent. Their patience has withstood U.S. engagement in the region and the present peace in the region must not be allowed to break down, especially since election season is not far away and reduction of U.S. forces, a longstanding demand by most Iraqis, must be expedited. Amongst other factors, it would pave the way for stability in the region as well as decrease the possibility of strikes in violation of international law, as happened during the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces some days ago.
Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. were based on relations between two individuals, President Bush and General Musharraf. Due to the dictatorial rule of General (R) Musharraf, who looked at the U.S. for support and control rather than his own people, as is the norm in a democracy. The Bush administration did broker a deal between the PPP and General (R) Musharraf but it was only when the restoration of the judiciary movement shook the power structure in Pakistan that progress over the deal was hastened and General (R) Musharraf was convinced to hold free and fair elections and step down. Stability in the region and democracy for Pakistan became a U.S. interest only because its own engagement in the neighboring country as well as Pakistan’s ability to conduct the war within its borders felt threatened as the military’s popularity in this country recorded a new low. Even under democratic rule and in an allied position, Pakistan’s protests over territorial violations fell on deaf ears and relations reached a critical level when in September, a ground incursion was carried out which took away the lives of innocent people. Even though a moratorium on such violations seems to be in place, violations of territory by drones and missiles are taking place uninterrupted and in the absence of a ‘secret arrangement’ as is being alleged by certain quarters between Pakistan and U.S., it is hard to imagine that relations would not further deteriorate if Pakistan choose to suspend supplies to the U.S. instead of summoning the U.S. Ambassador, which seems to have no effect at the moment.
It is hoped that under Mr. Obama’s leadership, all these trends would be reversed and a credible American leadership, which is in the interest of even its enemies for the U.S. alone has the sole ability to change the complexion of a country’s politics through a combination of, or separate application of, entangled and complicated set of diplomatic tricks as well as brute force. Much work needs to be done to better the perception of the United States in the world by the incoming administration.
Mr. Obama has won the election riding on his slogan and promise for a change that America needs at this hour to replenish its poor record which has diminished U.S. credibility and its ability to lead the world due to a weakening economy and two successive terms of outgoing President Bush, whose contempt for international law and rash behaviour has largely isolated U.S. from its tested friends as well as greatly polarized the world in a way not witnessed since the Cold war and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Mr. Obama must work fervently to restore the pride of a superpower, which had the moral authority to lead the post-Communist world, built upon the strength of its capitalist system, which is itself feared to be on the verge of collapse and is already being studied as a failed model by economists who are revisiting the socialist model and appreciating the strengths of a hybrid system such as China’s, which has survived the economic plague of the capitalist models adopted by countries influenced by the success of U.S. and the other Western countries based on the capitalist economy.
The credibility of the U.S. has suffered in other ways as well, pertinently its role as a guarantor of peace and arbitrator during conflicts due to its failure to play the role of a neutral player. It is impossible to perceive a settlement for the Palestinians in the Middle East in the immediate future due to the pro-Israeli stance embraced by the Bush administration and refusal to exert pressure on Israel to settle its territorial disputes, most importantly over Golan Heights vis a vis Syria and the dispute with Egypt over territory seized during the 1967 war. Worse still, the U.S. administration acquiesced in the Israeli settlement and demolishing of the Palestinians’ houses in additional territory and also nodded with approval over the grueling bombing of Beirut by the Jewish state which was an unjustified response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, which were never recovered despite the barbaric bombing and killing of innocent civilians. The blockade of Gaza is yet another inhumane act of Israel, supported by the U.S. in a rather illogical manner.
The nuclear standoff with Iran and Bush’s personal hate for the Islamic nation has also not met with much approval in the world, with the European leaders preferring a ‘dialogue’ approach as opposed to the diplomacy of issuing threats and pleasing the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and intimidating Iran by talks of pre-emptive strikes on the ‘suspected nuke sites’ in that country. It is not surprising that the U.S. has been unable to garner much support over this mode to resolve this issue given its past history and the false case it made out of Iraq’s nuclear capability to support an invasion, which had been planned regardless of the fact that whether Iraq possessed such weapons or not. In fact, when Mr. Powell, the then Secretary of State was making a case in the U.N. for supporting the war, the U.S. intelligence and White House officials were already aware that there were no such weapons, as Mr. Ron Suskind, a prominent journalist disclosed earlier this year in his book.
The Iraqi leadership is demanding a quicker withdrawal then previously anticipated and Mr. Obama’s pledge to withdraw would therefore increase the possibility of disengagement of the U.S. forces from the region in the foreseeable future. The Iraqis, like most Arabs are highly patriotic and fiercely independent. Their patience has withstood U.S. engagement in the region and the present peace in the region must not be allowed to break down, especially since election season is not far away and reduction of U.S. forces, a longstanding demand by most Iraqis, must be expedited. Amongst other factors, it would pave the way for stability in the region as well as decrease the possibility of strikes in violation of international law, as happened during the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces some days ago.
Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. were based on relations between two individuals, President Bush and General Musharraf. Due to the dictatorial rule of General (R) Musharraf, who looked at the U.S. for support and control rather than his own people, as is the norm in a democracy. The Bush administration did broker a deal between the PPP and General (R) Musharraf but it was only when the restoration of the judiciary movement shook the power structure in Pakistan that progress over the deal was hastened and General (R) Musharraf was convinced to hold free and fair elections and step down. Stability in the region and democracy for Pakistan became a U.S. interest only because its own engagement in the neighboring country as well as Pakistan’s ability to conduct the war within its borders felt threatened as the military’s popularity in this country recorded a new low. Even under democratic rule and in an allied position, Pakistan’s protests over territorial violations fell on deaf ears and relations reached a critical level when in September, a ground incursion was carried out which took away the lives of innocent people. Even though a moratorium on such violations seems to be in place, violations of territory by drones and missiles are taking place uninterrupted and in the absence of a ‘secret arrangement’ as is being alleged by certain quarters between Pakistan and U.S., it is hard to imagine that relations would not further deteriorate if Pakistan choose to suspend supplies to the U.S. instead of summoning the U.S. Ambassador, which seems to have no effect at the moment.
It is hoped that under Mr. Obama’s leadership, all these trends would be reversed and a credible American leadership, which is in the interest of even its enemies for the U.S. alone has the sole ability to change the complexion of a country’s politics through a combination of, or separate application of, entangled and complicated set of diplomatic tricks as well as brute force. Much work needs to be done to better the perception of the United States in the world by the incoming administration.
