Skip to main content

One telephone call may seal Obama's place in history

For many, the Obama presidency has been a disappointment. The 'Yes we Can' mantra has faded into a distant memory. But in many ways he was bound to disappoint. Voter expectation for change wasn't predicated on an agreement on what that change would be. Change meant different things to different people. 

But change there has been, and nothing reflects that change more than a simple act; a telephone call.

When Obama lifted the phone in the Oval Office to call Iranian President Rohani it represented a different way of thinking about world affairs. It said 'Yes we can' to solving issues in a way that doesn't require a resort to military intervention. 

Of course it required the biggest change of all. A change in the Iranian Presidency. But it takes two to tango and the first tentative steps have been taken in a fifteen minute telephone call. 

It is of course too early to say what a rapprochement with Iran will lead to. But if there is rapprochement it may make Obama's mark in the history books. If it creates a new atmosphere for resolving the problems of the Middle East the world will be a safer place. 

It is also too early to say  how the Syrian crisis will resolve, but Obama backed away from a military strike to 'give peace a chance'. At one point it looked as if a military strike had momentum. But popular will said a resounding 'no'. First it was rejected by the UK parliament; then Obama backed off to seek congressional approval.

Some saw this as weakness. But it takes strength to think again. As Obama has said in response to criticism that he was dithering 'I am much more concerned with getting the policy right'. 

How different history might have been if the Bush administration had taken time to think again about invading Iraq or at least thought through what the end point was likely to be.

If the Syrian regime gives up its chemical weapons it will be a major achievement. Russia will take great credit for brokering the way forward. But Obama has shown real courage in stepping back and supporting the process. It is surely better than military intervention in a messy civil war. 

There will be those who are sceptical. Perhaps they are right to be. But when I heard the news of the telephone call made by Obama I was full of hope and optimism. A great deal more now needs to be done. But it is the first bit of optimism I have felt in international affairs for a long time. A cloud has lifted and the sun might shine. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more