In the already crowded field for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has built the kind of following worthy of a superstar.
Why? Perhaps the answer lies in his refreshing optimism or the innovative solutions he has proposed for challenges related to a variety of issues, including foreign policy.
Even with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks a very recent memory and the endless quagmire in Iraq present today, some Americans are still apathetic about foreign policy. Understandably, most of us are more concerned about the crime, economic, education and health care related matters in our own communities than unrest taking place overseas.
However, that overseas unrest can affect us at home in more ways than we imagine, especially if it calls for our loved ones to be drafted into the military to fight a savage war, or lead to an increase in already high gasoline prices due to our dependence on foreign oil.
That is why we need a leader who can navigate the complex arena of international affairs with finesse and skill. Obama could just be the man to fill this need.
Obama’s service as an attorney and Illinois state assemblyman confined him to domestic affairs, and because opponents such as Hillary Clinton have attacked him as “inexperienced” in foreign affairs.
However, Obama is a fast learner and as soon as he took office in the Senate he began to quickly sharpen his knowledge of foreign affairs. He joined Indiana’s own Sen. Richard Lugar in taking a tour of Russia and former Soviet republics to inspect unprotected sites that hold Soviet-era weapons, nuclear reactors and chemical warfare agents, which Obama called “the greatest threat” to our national security.
Obama and Lugar immediately called for an expansion of a program for the U.S. to buy the weapons, nuclear materials and chemical agents so that they can be disposed of properly and not sold to terrorists.
Later, Obama called for an innovative approach that most of his opponents (Democrat and Republican) have lacked the courage to adopt: direct talks with Syria and Iran.
Since the rise of the autocratic Assad dynasty in Syria in 1970 and the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, most policy makers in Washington have taken a hardline stance against those two countries and labeled them “sponsors of terror.” Obama, however, realizes that years of attempted isolation and sanctions have not worked.
His plan involves using “tough-minded” diplomacy designed to engage Syria and Iran as partners in achieving stability in Iraq, which is of vital interest to the Untied States and all countries in the Middle East. Once the diplomatic ice is broken, Syria could also be finally brought to the table for a comprehensive peace agreement with longtime foe Israel, and Iran might abandon plans to expand its nuclear technology if Obama’s proposal of creating an international “nuclear fuel bank” is implemented.
Obama’s supporters have noted, and I agree, that if our officials could negotiate treaties with the former Soviet Union and “Red” China and restore full diplomatic relations with Moammar Quadaffi’s regime in Libya (a nuisance in the ‘80s), then why can’t we at least talk to Iran, Syria and or even North Korea?
Obama, however, is not naïve (as some of his critics have charged) and he realizes that not everyone will sit down with our leaders and talk reasonably over a cup of coffee. He has pledged to use decisive force if necessary to deal with terrorist organizations like Al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah.
He announced, perhaps prematurely, that a U.S. military strike should be conducted in Pakistan without that government’s permission if credible intelligence indicated specific locations of Al-Qaida leaders. The remark generated controversy but Obama said, “If we have credible information about high-value terrorist targets and Pakistan won’t act, we should. That’s common sense.”
Obama has called for an end to Cold War era sanctions that have severely limited opportunities for Americans to travel and send money to Cuba. The announcement has generated praise among Cuban immigrants who would like to visit their relatives and send financial assistance to them, not Fidel Castro.
Obama’s stance, while appalling to those who are stuck in the past and still believe Russia will somehow put missiles back in Cuba, shows that he is looking toward the future at a post-Castro government, and he understands that an infusion of American economic freedom in Cuba is a gateway to demands for political and social freedom.
Obama, who was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, believes a timetable should be set for American troops to depart, which would force the Iraqi government to be more diligent about getting its armed forces ready to maintain order and stability.
Recently the senator stated his belief that America should strive for more partnerships and not try to solve the threats of this century alone, adding “We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission – we must lead the world by deed and example.”
If the actions of a President Obama matches his rhetoric, he will take our nation’s foreign policy out of the hands of those who profit from war, and put it back where it belongs: In the hands of experienced diplomats who value the art of peaceful negotiation and building international coalitions.
(Our current president’s own father, by the way, also valued this approach.)
Under Obama, America’s standing in the world could be restored as a protector of liberty and a compassionate upholder of prosperity worthy of respect.
This column is not necessarily an endorsement of Obama, but his foreign policy ideas deserve to be weighed as Democrats choose their presidential nominee.
