& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Obama: Reaching out or burying unilateralism

Mumtaz Iqbal
OBAMA'S recent eight-day four-country trip is notable more for symbolism than substance. In London, Strasbourg, Prague and Ankara, he emphasised partnership to solve global problems such as recession, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
This effort reverses Bush's unilateralism and recklessly throwing US weight around epitomized by phrases ‘‘axis of evil” and ‘‘you are either with us or against us.”
Bush was discredited because his bullying failed in the two hot wars he launched in Afghanistan and Iraq. While defeating the enemy militarily, both theatres cost the US big time politically.
Afghanistan is a work-inprogress. Iraq, despite the “surge," was a political disaster. The US financial system's implosion last September was the last straw that saw Bush's approval slip below30%.
While the financial disaster helped Obama win, he faced the daunting job of righting the US economy. The answer to the problem: prop up demand. Obama approved a stimulus package of $787 billion, housing reform expenditure of $275 billion and a plan pledging $2 trillion to buy up toxic bank loans.
Against this bleak background, the way to tackle the recession saw a difference emerging at the G-20 summit held 2 April in London between the Anglo-Saxons (US/UK) and continental Europeans (France/Germany). The former wanted more spending, the latter comprehensive financial regulation.
The compromise hammered out was for greater regulation of the financial system including hedge funds and credit rating agencies. About $1.1 trillion would be pumped into the world economy through additional resources to Washington-based and US-influenced IMF ($850 billion) and IBRD.
Obama's G-20 performance was nuanced and pragmatic, as he summed up at the concluding press conference: "America is a critical actor and leader on the world stage; we exercise our leadership best when listening... recognize... (that) world is complicated... have to act in partnership with other countries... lead by example... show some element of humility... we may not always have the best answer... (but) always encourage... (and) support the best answer."
This approach ("agree to disagree agreeably”) is as different from Bush's unilateralism as chalk is from cheese. For now, US will accept gracefully contributions voluntarily made by its European allies rather than risk a 'no” and see a profitless continuation of the transatlantic fractures under Bush.
Nato meeting 3-4 April also saw this pragmatism. Having announced on 26 March that 21,000 more GIs wojuld go to Afghanistan, Obama hoped his Nato allies would emulate. But the Europeans, more interested in exiting from than increasing their Afghan involvement, promised 5,000 soldiersnot a small numberbut only till August 2009 when Kabul holds elections, and another 2,000 troops, but only to train Afghan army and police.
Obama was content with this offer rather than rail as Rumsfeld did about old and new Europe and that EU was getting a free ride at US expense.
The Obama/Medvedev meeting in London on 1 April saw Obama avoid issues like Georgia and Ukraine that raise Russian hackles to reach an agreement whereby Russia and USwho between them hold 96% of nuclear weaponsreduce their stockpile.
Obama hopes that this spring thaw will stop the "drift” over the last several years in “the relationship between our two countries.” By doing "our part to move away from the dangers of the world that contains so many nuclear weapons," Obama has reversed the long-standing US nuclear policy of a permanent duopoly and discouraging others from acquiring atomic weaponry.
He hopes this downsizing will placate Iran and other developing countries longstanding complaint about the developed world's nuclear weapons. This won't be easy, certainly not in South Asia and as long as Israel's nuclear status is not clarified.
To the Turkish parliament on 6 April, Obama candidly admitted that the “trust that binds the US and Turkey has been strained,” and reached out to Muslims by stressing that the “United States is not, and will never be, at war with
Islam."
Bush also said this but was not believed. Obama will be more successful because the tone, context and content of American policy is shifting e.g. US overture to Iran.
But in other respects. Obama has not strayed far from Bush. His Afghan policy announced 26 March with its aim of destroying al-Qaeda in Pakistan while tacitly invoking 9/11 is more limited than Bush's policy of democratizing Afghanistan, but sending in more soldiers isn't. Bush's Afghan war now belongs to Obama.
Ln Prague on 5 April, (Obama criticised Pyongyang's rocket launch and thundered that rules must be observed. Fair enough, but there is an inconsistency here. Washington has blithely backed Israel which habitually ignores UN resolutions. Is the US then going to change its policy towards Tel Aviv?
It may on some tactical issues like West Bank settlements but Israel/US strategic partnership should remain robust. We ll know its robustness soon enough by their divergent or similar N reaction and/or response to Iran's nuclear efforts.
Obama undertook extensive public diplomacy to reach European cum global audience. He held town halls in Strasbourg 3 April before Franco-Germans and in Istanbul 7 April with 100
Turkish students. His Prague meeting attracted thousands.
Obama's assessment at the end of G-20 summit that his election and early outreach decisions are “starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world" is reasonable. He has ploughed the land, planted the seeds and watered the soil. The yield depends on the pests and weather, things over which Obama has limited control.
The author is a freelancer.