July 7, 2010By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)
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 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 peangmeth@yahoo.com.
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 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 peangmeth@yahoo.com.
7 comments:
Listen up khmer people:
The US is no magic bullet for cambodian problems and president Obama works in the interests of the US FIRST and FOREMOST. It's about time the khmers realize that and start working together in resolving our own problems. Wishful thinking... perhaps.
It seems the current US Administration's approach to foreign policy is engagement and collaboration. Although, there are fundamental diffrences in terms of how we view democracy and human rights, we rather focus on working with nations to build concensus on security and economic interests. So, even though Cambodia's democracy and human rights standards are not yet considered as acceptable, America will not openly confront RGC on Cambodia's domestic problems any time soon.
12:18pm, right on! especially there are lessons from the recent past to learn from, like 1970, 1975
Thanks for the article,however is it relevant to cambodians circumstances?
What sort of impact to cambodia regarding the foreign policy of USA?.
Peasant
Well A. Gaffa Peang-Meth wishes not to be forgotten so he write article to reflect his knowledge and Phd title. It does not matter it has the impact to Cambodia or not but he just wants to show off to Khmer people with his ego. This is my observation on the writer. I sincerely hope that he would be more sensitized to contribute relevant article which corresponding to current issues in Cambodia and help to enlighten his people to be beneficial from it.
look at the big picture, gentlemen.
Years 1960-1980, USA, USSR and China burned south-est Asia.
USA and China will burn south-est asia again ?
I hope not.
Post a Comment