---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gaffar Peang-Meth <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:25 PM Subject: Will Obama push for democracy? To:
*Dear Readers,* ** *Please be informed that my next article will appear on July 21. There will be no article on July 14.* ** *Regards,* ** *Peang-Meth* ** ** *DAILY NEWS *July 7, 2010 *Will Obama push for democracy? * By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth Words can be tricky things, as two convoluted comments, quoted here, remind us. One is attributed to State Department spokesman Robert McCloskey: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." The other is former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan: "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said." Clarity would seem to be more evident in the 52-page "National Security Strategy" released on May 27 by the Obama team, outlining U.S. goals and actions in the world. "To achieve the world that we seek, the U.S. must apply our strategic approach in pursuit of four enduring national interests" which are "inextricably linked" -- security (of the U.S., its citizens, its allies and partners), prosperity (a prosperous American economy), values (respect for universal values at home and abroad), international order (let nations pursue their interests, especially when they diverge). Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote an op-ed piece in the June 29 Washington Post in which he listed five recent, noteworthy foreign policy actions taken by President Obama. Highest on the list was Obama's nomination of Gen. David Patraeus as commander in Afghanistan. It signaled "Obama's determination to succeed in Afghanistan" and warned of the "never realistic" July 2011 departure of U.S. troops. Second, the U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran, though "mild, badly watered down by China and Russia," won't stop Iran from getting a bomb, but does increase pressure on Tehran. Third was Obama's handling of the U.S. base in Okinawa: "firm but engaged," and Tokyo's reaffirmed commitment to a U.S. alliance. Fourth, a free-trade agreement with South Korea represents the "first actual evidence" that the U.S. "is back" in Asia -- "If Congress can be persuaded to pass the agreement"! Last, Obama's public "Reset Fact Sheet" shows Washington's "serious disagreements" with Moscow over Georgia." It calls for the end to Russian "occupation" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia." What happened to Obama and democracy and human rights? In the May 31 "A worldview that's light on human rights," the Post's deputy editorial page editor, Jackson Diehl, asked, "What sort of international order does Barack Obama seek?" He quoted Obama's introduction to the NSS, where he spoke about "the challenges of our times: countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; resolving and preventing conflict, while also healing its wounds." "That's a big agenda," Diehl wrote, "But isn't something missing? ... Nowhere in that long sentence ... does Obama suggest that the international 'engagement' he proposes should serve to combat tyranny or oppression, or promote democracy. In that sense, ... human rights come second." Obama has said the U.S. must shape a world order relying as much on the persuasiveness of its diplomacy as the might of its military; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describes U.S. leadership as "building the coalitions that can produce results against those shared challenges ... providing incentives for states who are part of the solution, whether they recognize it or not, enabling them and encouraging them to live up to responsibilities that even a decade ago they would never have thought were theirs, and disincentives for those who do not." The section on "values" affirms "certain values are universal" -- freedom to speak one's mind, to assemble without fear, to worship as one pleases, and to choose one's own leaders -- and states the U.S. "will work to promote them worldwide." Autocratic rulers "have repressed basic human rights and democratic practices in the name of economic development and national unity," but the "U.S. supports those who seek to exercise universal rights around the world." Obama's introduction to the NSS states: "In all that we do, we will advocate for W and advance the basic rights upon which our Nation was founded. ... We promote these values by living them, including our commitment to the rule of law. We will strengthen international norms that protect these rights and create space and support for those who resist repression." Walter Shapiro of USA TODAY found the foreign policy buzz word "engagement" "brandished 42 separate times in 52 pages." He wrote: "Engagement is the active participation of the US in relationships beyond out borders ... the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes." For Foreign Policy's Will Inboden, "While the NSS rightfully devotes more rhetorical attention to the promotion of human rights and democracy, it unfortunately puts too much emphasis on the U.S. example alone" and "What (international reformers) want is active (U.S.) advocacy and support -- even when that support might cause friction in diplomatic engagement with their own governments." Critics say there are certain rights and policies the U.S. should support unconditionally, regardless of how many other nations in the world oppose them. One stated that President Obama needs to back up his political rhetoric with support for political rights reform. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at [email protected]. http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201007070300/OPINION02/7070301 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group. This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language. Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
