Obama at the UN: Pragmatic Idealism
posted by: Charlie Brown 86 days ago
Charles J. Brown is Senior Fellow and Washington Director at the Institute for International Law and Human Rights and the host of Undiplomatic, a blog on the intersection of foreign policy, politics, and pop culture.
After much anticipation in the rest of the world (and pretty much massive indifference in the United States), Barack Obama gave his first speech before the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday morning.
The speech was marked by soaring rhetoric, hard-headed truth-telling, and more substance than the all eight of the past President's speeches to UNGA combined.
If I had to summarize it in a few words, I would call it pragmatic idealism. What do I mean by that? Here's how I explained it back in November, immediately after the election:
"[A]n Obama administration is likely to pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics. Realism should trump ideology, and principles should trump interests. Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label. . . .This approach is not unprecedented in American history. It represents a vision not unlike that of the first Bush Administration (which helps explain why a number of G.H.W. Bush’s senior foreign policy advisors either endorsed Obama or remained on the sidelines). It also reflects the creativity and flexibility of the postwar Truman Administration, which, under the leadership of men like George Marshall and Dean Acheson, had to build new foreign policy and national security institutions virtually from scratch.
It therefore is possible that, to use Acheson’s famous phrase, we are once again “present at the creation” of a new paradigm, one that focuses on what the United States can do for the world, not what the world can do for the United States. This may take more time than originally envisioned, in large part because the financial crisis will draw away important resources from the task. But in the end, Obama has the opportunity to remake the way the United States pursues its interests in the world."
That's a pretty good description of what we saw yesterday. And he followed it up by chairing a meeting of the UN Security Council -- one that may lead to real progress in the effort to slow (and perhaps halt) the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
What follows are a few additional observations -- by no means comprehensive -- about both Wednesday's speech and the response to it in the blogosphere.
1. Obama spoke frankly about past U.S. policies that angered or alienated the rest of the world. He he noted the fact that much of the world had come to believe that the United States far too often acted unilaterally. He acknowledged, albeit indirectly, that the United States had condoned torture. He admitted that America had not always lived its values or led by example.
But in doing so, he challenged those present to foresake "almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which often has served as an excuse for collective inaction." He acknowledged that the U.S. cannot solve the world's problems by itself, but challenged the rest of the world to do its part:
"This cannot solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought. . .a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
As the former President and CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, which believes that that the world's problems cannot be solved by any one country on its own, I have to say that Obama's words delighted me. They struck exactly the right balance between American leadership and global participation. Now that the United States has acknowledged the need for a multilateral approach, however, the rest of the world needs to do its part. That doesn't necessarily mean doing what the U.S. wants, but it does mean that other countries can no longer use American policies as an excuse for inaction.
2. Obama used language consistent with communitarianism, a political philosophy that believes that individual rights must be balanced by the needs and interests of the community. Communitarians argue that each community is shaped by its culture, but also believe that a strong civil society is a prerequisite for a strong community.
In that context, take a look at some of Obama's language:
"We can only reach [a future of peace an dprosperity] if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes [the world] work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation. . . .The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. And so with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve."
It's all there -- the focus on balancing rights and responsibilities, the emphasis on needing to work together to achieve common goals, the challenge to other nations to the burden of solving the world's most pressing problems. Obama went out of his way to call on every nation live up to the UN's founding vision -- what he called "the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart."
To put it another way, Obama's remarks were a reiteration of his speech to Congress on health care: we must work together to solve fundamental challenges; if we fail to do so, we will all suffer the consequences of the continued isolation and atomization of society.
3. In a speech than was roughly 38 minutes long, Obama mentioned the conflict in Afghanistan only in passing, and even then only in the context of defeating "al Qaeda and its extremist allies." That is striking because such language is consistent with a New York Times report today that Obama may not send more troops there. It's also ironic given the fact that the think tank community and blogosphere have spent most of the past week hyperventilating over the issue.
4. There were a number of applause lines in the speech, but one that stood out -- and was the most unexpected -- was Obama's passing reference to the U.S. decision to join the Human Rights Council.
For those not familiar with this UN body's history, I will only note that it is a huge mess (even by UN standards), under the control of dictatorships that have devoted most of the HRC's energies to resolutions condemning Israel -- so much so that it has passed more resolutions on Israel than the rest of the world combined. Obama's decision to engage rather than ignore the Council is an important component of his support for multilateralism, but it also represents the last real hope that the UN can actually be a credible voice on human rights issues.
5. The core of Obama's presentation was what he called "the four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people." It would not be unfair to say that these four concepts represent the closest thing we've seen to an Obama Doctrine: peace, security (in all meanings of that word), and prosperity.
It is an ambitious agenda, one that will test the skills of Obama and his talented foreign policy team -- and one that may founder on the rocks of Afghanistan.
There was, of course, much more -- too much to highlight in what is already a too-long summary. I recommend that you take time too look at other perspectives, including the The NYT's analysis piece, Michael Tomasky's description of Obama as the "un-Bush,", and Dan Balz's discussion of Obama's "challenge of moving beyond America alone." I also suggest that you check out UN Dispatch's comprehensive coverage of not only the speech but the entire General Assembly.
For contrarian views, take a look at Nile Gardiner's column in the Telegraph (UK) and an interview with John Bolton over at National Review Online.
Bolton is to foreign policy as Glen Beck is to sanity, but it's still interesting to see what he has to say. He calls Obama's speech both naive and Wilsonian (which last I checked is in fact a contradiction in terms). He calls it "a post-American speech by our first post-American President," which comes awfully close to the whole birther camp. My favorite line: "Obama talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us."
And that is a bad thing because. . . ? And trust me: he wasn't complementing the President.
Coming from someone who once suggested knocking ten stories off the UN building, I guess that I should not be surprised. (Full disclosure: I was one of the leaders of the campaign to oppose Bolton's nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.)
All in all, a fascinating speech and an interesting debate. What did you think of the speech?
The speech was marked by soaring rhetoric, hard-headed truth-telling, and more substance than the all eight of the past President's speeches to UNGA combined.
If I had to summarize it in a few words, I would call it pragmatic idealism. What do I mean by that? Here's how I explained it back in November, immediately after the election:
"[A]n Obama administration is likely to pursue a foreign policy based on sound strategic principles and coherent tactics. Realism should trump ideology, and principles should trump interests. Call it pragmatic idealism, if you must apply a label. . . .This approach is not unprecedented in American history. It represents a vision not unlike that of the first Bush Administration (which helps explain why a number of G.H.W. Bush’s senior foreign policy advisors either endorsed Obama or remained on the sidelines). It also reflects the creativity and flexibility of the postwar Truman Administration, which, under the leadership of men like George Marshall and Dean Acheson, had to build new foreign policy and national security institutions virtually from scratch.
It therefore is possible that, to use Acheson’s famous phrase, we are once again “present at the creation” of a new paradigm, one that focuses on what the United States can do for the world, not what the world can do for the United States. This may take more time than originally envisioned, in large part because the financial crisis will draw away important resources from the task. But in the end, Obama has the opportunity to remake the way the United States pursues its interests in the world."
That's a pretty good description of what we saw yesterday. And he followed it up by chairing a meeting of the UN Security Council -- one that may lead to real progress in the effort to slow (and perhaps halt) the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
What follows are a few additional observations -- by no means comprehensive -- about both Wednesday's speech and the response to it in the blogosphere.
1. Obama spoke frankly about past U.S. policies that angered or alienated the rest of the world. He he noted the fact that much of the world had come to believe that the United States far too often acted unilaterally. He acknowledged, albeit indirectly, that the United States had condoned torture. He admitted that America had not always lived its values or led by example.
But in doing so, he challenged those present to foresake "almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which often has served as an excuse for collective inaction." He acknowledged that the U.S. cannot solve the world's problems by itself, but challenged the rest of the world to do its part:
"This cannot solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought. . .a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
As the former President and CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, which believes that that the world's problems cannot be solved by any one country on its own, I have to say that Obama's words delighted me. They struck exactly the right balance between American leadership and global participation. Now that the United States has acknowledged the need for a multilateral approach, however, the rest of the world needs to do its part. That doesn't necessarily mean doing what the U.S. wants, but it does mean that other countries can no longer use American policies as an excuse for inaction.
2. Obama used language consistent with communitarianism, a political philosophy that believes that individual rights must be balanced by the needs and interests of the community. Communitarians argue that each community is shaped by its culture, but also believe that a strong civil society is a prerequisite for a strong community.
In that context, take a look at some of Obama's language:
"We can only reach [a future of peace an dprosperity] if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes [the world] work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation. . . .The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. And so with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve."
It's all there -- the focus on balancing rights and responsibilities, the emphasis on needing to work together to achieve common goals, the challenge to other nations to the burden of solving the world's most pressing problems. Obama went out of his way to call on every nation live up to the UN's founding vision -- what he called "the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart."
To put it another way, Obama's remarks were a reiteration of his speech to Congress on health care: we must work together to solve fundamental challenges; if we fail to do so, we will all suffer the consequences of the continued isolation and atomization of society.
3. In a speech than was roughly 38 minutes long, Obama mentioned the conflict in Afghanistan only in passing, and even then only in the context of defeating "al Qaeda and its extremist allies." That is striking because such language is consistent with a New York Times report today that Obama may not send more troops there. It's also ironic given the fact that the think tank community and blogosphere have spent most of the past week hyperventilating over the issue.
4. There were a number of applause lines in the speech, but one that stood out -- and was the most unexpected -- was Obama's passing reference to the U.S. decision to join the Human Rights Council.
For those not familiar with this UN body's history, I will only note that it is a huge mess (even by UN standards), under the control of dictatorships that have devoted most of the HRC's energies to resolutions condemning Israel -- so much so that it has passed more resolutions on Israel than the rest of the world combined. Obama's decision to engage rather than ignore the Council is an important component of his support for multilateralism, but it also represents the last real hope that the UN can actually be a credible voice on human rights issues.
5. The core of Obama's presentation was what he called "the four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people." It would not be unfair to say that these four concepts represent the closest thing we've seen to an Obama Doctrine: peace, security (in all meanings of that word), and prosperity.
It is an ambitious agenda, one that will test the skills of Obama and his talented foreign policy team -- and one that may founder on the rocks of Afghanistan.
There was, of course, much more -- too much to highlight in what is already a too-long summary. I recommend that you take time too look at other perspectives, including the The NYT's analysis piece, Michael Tomasky's description of Obama as the "un-Bush,", and Dan Balz's discussion of Obama's "challenge of moving beyond America alone." I also suggest that you check out UN Dispatch's comprehensive coverage of not only the speech but the entire General Assembly.
For contrarian views, take a look at Nile Gardiner's column in the Telegraph (UK) and an interview with John Bolton over at National Review Online.
Bolton is to foreign policy as Glen Beck is to sanity, but it's still interesting to see what he has to say. He calls Obama's speech both naive and Wilsonian (which last I checked is in fact a contradiction in terms). He calls it "a post-American speech by our first post-American President," which comes awfully close to the whole birther camp. My favorite line: "Obama talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us."
And that is a bad thing because. . . ? And trust me: he wasn't complementing the President.
Coming from someone who once suggested knocking ten stories off the UN building, I guess that I should not be surprised. (Full disclosure: I was one of the leaders of the campaign to oppose Bolton's nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.)
All in all, a fascinating speech and an interesting debate. What did you think of the speech?
Read more: peace, politics, torture, environment, economy, security, afghanistan, nonproliferation, human rights, global warming, obama, Communitarianism, climate change, obama administration, united nations, unga, un human rights council, john bolton
comments
"The speech was marked by soaring rhetoric, hard-headed truth-telling, and more substance than the all eight of the past President's speeches to UNGA combined."
Barack Hussein Obama!
MMMM MMMM MMMMM!
Utter nonsense. Obama gave a speech that would have been embarrassing for a college sophomore. No reasonable person would have claimed that no country can or should dominate another. We can argue whether there are times when one should, but it is inarguable that history is an unbroken story of countries dominating others. This is no trivial issue, but gets the heart of Obama's dangerous foolishness.
His worldview is childish in its belief that all conflict can be eliminated with the right words and attitude. I suppose it's ok for some ineffectual academic to thus intone, but it is unacceptably dangerous coming from the President of the United States. How fitting that on the day Obama wanted to show his global commitment, he's surrounded by three lunatics from Iran Libya and Venezuela. Even worse, all three of these scoundrels were effusive in their praise of Obama.
Which brings up Obama's bizarre urge to deny differences between countries. These differences are genuine and the matter greatly. Obama, in his confusion, fails to recognize the crucial difference between the US and Iran, for instance. That's a difference we don't want to erase from our end.
Obama is seen as weak and cowardly by those to whom he extends his hand. Iran laughs as it launches midrang
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
The blind bigotry of those who seek every opportunity to sabotage your President's efforts to repair the horribly damaged image of the U.S.A. reveals the shockingly primitive character of so many of his citizens, nothing short of racism and fascism.
For the first time in living memory you have a leader who is not an international thug, not an ignorant cowboy, who does not prance around the world arousing widespread hatred, slaughtering millions, who is genuinely trying to lead the world to better things and clearly cares for all his countrymen. He inherited an utter disaster. To expect him in four years to eradicate the heritage of nearly four hundred years of misrule is patently unrealistic, but he has already made a very promising start, is highly respected and admired around the world.
And don't try to bring up the old myth about having "saved the world for democracy". You became involved only when the result was already a foregone conclusion, having in the meantime enriched yourselves and bankrupted the true champions of democracy by selling munitions to both sides. Since then you have periodically scattered mayhem and murder all over the globe.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Obama said he wanted to look forward. Why does he keep referring to the actions of the Bush administration?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
A very commendable speech. I don't see in it much of the apologetics that has his critics so apoplectic.
What I want to hear--and maybe it will take some time to emerge--is what Obama will propose to lead the U.N.--and particularly the Security Council--into the 21st century. The greatest problem with the U.N. is that it has not been updated significantly in 60 years, and significant reform of the U.N. Charter can only be done with U.S. leadership. And, frankly, it will never be done if Obama doesn't get the ball rolloing--he is the last,best hope we have.
Thank goodness that our hope in him is not misplaced--we just have excessive expectations.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Thank you Frances Chapman. That's also my understanding of what Obama is about, but it seems the right wing just can't or won't get their minds around such a fair and co-operative idea.They are bent on furtheriing the lie that what's already happened, thanks to Big Private Industries, supported and protected by themselves, is some big new horrible reality about to befall us and it's all Obamas fault, and those of us low income people are the 'elites'. Appearently they really think we can't tell their lies from the truth of our own experience.Most importantly, they must think we haven't noticed who'es been perpetuating the dirty work and snoozing at the wheel untill they start to get really scared at being exposed.They're all about power-over and punishment.The new way is about co-operation, individual responsability,community, and maturity.The evolution of life will no longer support them and they know it.It's only a 'government take over' if you're ripping off the people whoes government it is, and they start to take it back. Most don't recognize what that looks like when it's done in a non-military way. The present strategy of the status quo is to create confusion,turn people against each other, and just generally make a lot of noise and dust and hand wringing. It will all backfire on them because that's just the way things work.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
With no apologies, I admit to voting for President Obama. If the repubs could just get over themselves, and give the President a chance, (and stop looking for every tiny word, action or error that he might make) he might be able to do the job we elected him to do.
Lync
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Okay Manuela, you've made your point. Now please let others join in the discussion. There is such a thing as comment spam, and you're on the verge of crossing it.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
WAKE UP CHARLIE BROWN!!! THE WORLD DOES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvst The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2634703139474212867 The U.N. Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAihc0QQsc The Calling
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197 ZEIGEIST
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 America: Freedom to Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItovxXPqNa0 Secret societies - Bilderberg - Skull and Bones - Pt 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRzPOL9wGBk Professor Sutton on the Skull and Bones secret society 1
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-82095917705734983&ei=braKSu7iApHUqwKV7ZzrCQ&q=BOHEMIAN+GROVE&hl=en BOHEMIAN GROVE
http://www.thecrowhouse.com/ftnwo.html Fight the New World Order with Global Non Compliance
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7373201783240489827 Illuminati: The Hidden Agenda for World Government
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8291386537788537096 Secrets of the 3rd reich
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8163242610322780521 Eugenics Movement (#2)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3891535120990840079 Who Controls The World? Illuminati, Jesuits, Bilderberg, Church, Skull, Religion
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8674401787208020885&q=in+lies+we+trust&total=620&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
In Lie
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
If Obama spends more time working for the world then he does trying to change his own country for the "better", I guess it's ok. But I am tired of hearing him apologize and bust on his own every time he sees a microphone.
No matter what the UN says or does, we are the ones who pay for it. Since virtually nothing it does benefits us in any way, I have no clue why you liberals get so excited about it. Obama's unilateral babbling about getting rid of nukes of course while a liberal dream is incredibly naive and out right stupid. Without those nukes, we'd have to spend far more to balance our growing list of enemies (weird how that still is happening despite Bush's departure). At a time when our nuclear systems need upgrading, talk of elimination is both senseless and dangerous.
The world remains full of wolves and tigers, the UN is the place they go to rant on us. The sooner we get out of it and people like Obama grow up, the better off we are.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Face it--Obama is selling our country down the river as fast as he can. I am astounded daily at how much he and his effete ivy league "progressive" cronies hate us and our nation! Check out Communiterianism, by the way - - it's a way for the few (elite - - like Obama and his cronies) to dictate to the rest of us (because we're the "unwashed" and the not-Harvard/Yale-educated bumbling nobodies. Please! doesn't anyone THINK anymore? I know the public schools are bad - - but I can't believe the amount of know-nothings and boobs they've turned out. Obama is Okay? huh? Better wise up, folks. I'm getting old and won't have to live many years with all this craziness that's starting - - but a lot of you are young, and youre going to be stuck with this mess. Just a word to the wise.
By the way, have any of you kids ever read Saul Alinsky? Even better a question: COULD you read Saul Alinsky? I hope a few do before it's too late. And believe me, the clock is ticking.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1257163