Obama and the world
No matter what one’s personal opinion of Barack Obama might be, the enthusiastic reception he received in Europe, especially the 200,000-strong crowd in Berlin last Thursday, was most impressive. The visit by the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president of the United States is not so important with regard to his message (a predictable call for unity in facing global problems) but rather on account of the interest that the rest of the planet is showing in the US election. As the world gets smaller and its problems grow bigger, it is becoming increasingly clear that America cannot go it alone but nor can the rest of us pursue solutions that do not have America’s backing and active participation. In his haste to invade Iraq, George W. Bush and his administration steamrollered traditional friendships, dividing Europe into «New» and «Old» parts. It’s no coincidence that the «New» Europe was made up mainly of countries that had recently shaken off the Soviet yoke and were keen to present their pro-US credentials to Washington. The governments of the «Old» democracies of Western and Central Europe, for the most part, had the courage of their convictions but also the obligation to abide by their peoples’ demand that they not get involved in the Iraq war. (Exceptions were Britain and Spain, whose leaders were swayed by their traditional ties with the United States and who came close to tearing the European Union apart in early 2003.) Today, with Bush on his way out and Iraq appearing to be under partial control, at last, the issue of the war is no longer as divisive as it was. The Americans have seen that the reservations of the («Old») Europeans were not unjustified, while the Europeans have seen that a lack of stability in a given region poses a threat to all. Terrorism, climate change, the lack of liquidity in markets, inflation and price rises of oil, food, steel and other commodities plus the unbridled violence of some regimes against their own people are some of the problems that concern all of us and no country can tackle them on its own. This truth has become part of our global conscience over the past eight years – the years of the Bush presidency. Unlike his father, who governed from 1988 to 1992, this Bush did not seek a global alliance before going to war against Iraq. He broke the promise made by Bill Clinton’s administration to sign up to the Kyoto pact on climate change, he ignored the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war and introduced torture as a method of interrogation. The planet’s problems, however, demand that all countries do their bit and that international organizations intervene in a coordinated manner. The institutions are there. But some, like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the International Court of Justice, are seen by many countries as simply serving the interests of the United States rather than making decisions on the basis of objective criteria. Others, like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, are often paralyzed by disagreements between America and other countries (as in the recent case at the Security Council when Russia and France blocked the US bid to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe). This is not to say that America is wrong, just that the international system needs a new mandate, a restoration of confidence. Obama was opposed to the Iraq war, has proposed talks between the United States and members of the «Axis of Evil,» and, generally, shows a greater tendency toward cooperation than did Bush. That’s the chief reason why Europeans hope he will be someone they can talk to, who will listen to contrary arguments and who will be interested in substantial solutions to the world’s problems. Such a turn would give greater credibility to US policy and also strengthen international organizations. In the Bush presidency, the message was «What’s good for America is good for the world.» Maybe the time has come to try the opposite. Maybe what’s good for the world is good for America.
