Standing on the shoulders of those before him
Image of NATO via Wikipedia
Like all leaders before him, President Barack Obama has been shaped by those who came before him. Their leadership styles, the controversies that caught up with them, the assessments of how they operated, the alliances to which they were loyal, their capacities to have a global view and take global responsibilities seriously -- all these elements made them either good international leaders or not. This post is an overview of the President's first big trip abroad with the above items in mind. I begin with Madeleine Albright, who helped Obama during his campaign.
American leadership abroad -- Albright to Obama: The Audacity to Hope for Usefulness - Washington Whispers(usnews.com). To quote:
It was a simple message from one author to another. When Madeleine Albright gave President Obama a copy of her book, Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership , she left him a clever note. "I inscribed it to him, 'With the audacity to hope that this book will be useful,' " Albright said. "Be useful or be read?" kidded Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth, who moderated a conversation with Albright last night at George Washington University. And while the president may not have Albright's tome on his nightstand, some of the first things Obama accomplished as president were very similar to her recommendations, and the recommendations of other foreign policy pros.
Obama the rationalist -- Reflecting on the President's homecoming, John Harris and Eamon Javers at Politico
have written an interesting analysis of the Obama thinking style as it
emerged during the trip. To quote:
As Barack Obama returns from Europe on Tuesday, he has in bright, bold strokes revealed his signature on the world stage: He is Obama the rationalist.
A diverse set of Obama decisions in recent days have a common theme: a leader who sees himself building a more orderly, humane world by vanquishing outdated thinking and corrupting ideology.
With a rapid series of major announcements and rhetorical gestures, the new president has done more than turn from Bush-era policies. He has shined a vivid light on his philosophical outlook on the world -- and how starkly he differs from his predecessor on basic beliefs about power, diplomacy and even human nature.
"Obama the visionary: end nukes, admit Turkey to the European Union," is how Juan Cole of Informed Comment defines President Obama. Cole said, "Barack Obama continues to shake up the world with his new ideas, demonstrating himself again among the more creative and bold leaders the world has seen in the past half-century." President Obama visited Turkey after attending a celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Matthew M. Johnson of Congressional Quarterly has written a very interesting analysis of the "hazy future of the Atlantic Alliance." Before meeting with NATO and visiting Turkey, President Obama attended the G-20 meeting.
G-20 Meeting in the United Kingdom -- Is the outcome "a new world order, as Gordon Brown termed it?" What its implications for the world's poor? The Washington Note assessed it as "good for the developing world, though the stimulus was not addressed." The Financial Times has a very good in-depth piece that reports on the question, saying that harmony was the main item on the agenda. See also President Obama's interview with the Financial Times, his first with a foreign paper. It was a fine balance for the President to strike.
President Obama comes home to mini religious controversies. There was a bit of talk that some people were miffed because they did not get an invitation to the White House tonight for the first Passover Seder ever to be held there. US News and World Report has all the details about the occasion. The most visible conflict is over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame's commencement exercises. A letter to the editor at US News (4/9/09) calls it an "uproar." President Obama will attend Easter services in Washington , D.C., not necessarily the one he will join permanently, aids say.
President Barack Obama, helped by those before him, has a leadership style that is becoming apparent. Few serious controversies have caught him and the assessments of how he operated have been generally positive. The old alliances are getting to know the new president, with his outstanding capacities to have a global view and take global responsibilities seriously. All these elements could make Barack Obama a good international leaders or not. He will need more good help and some luck along the way.
See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.
Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.
Technorati tags: news news and politics politics foreign policy europe









![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4621da06-850d-425e-8e3e-cae9ac301408)







The vision of the New Administration is something to behold. There is planning here. The Team, as it were, are looking ahead four years, eight years and beyond. It gives world leaders confidence that they are not dealing with a flash in the pan or someone who will change course quickly on the whims of corporate bigwigs.
Good sold solid work today Carol.
April 10, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, I always value your perspective. You have a way of wrapping up with wisdom that I really admire. Thanks, much.
April 10, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for paying attention carol. I wish I was, but you're the next best thing.
Rec'd
April 11, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, what a nice way to say something nice.
April 12, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, the President has done a good job abroad so far and he has made us all proud by doing so, but let's not get too carried away just yet.
It's no surprise Obama would be coming close to Albright's recommendations because, after all, he is a Democrat and they have had a pretty solid consensus on how to approach foreign policy for years. He is merely implementing the dominant Democratic perspective on foreign policy which is what is expected. Thus, his positions and approach are not something unique to a visionary leader or any of that sort of thing. It may seem that way given what a pack of dunces were leading our foreign policy the previous 8 years, but the course he is taking is merely a level-headed mainstream course. He is helped by who and what he is in a way no other person could benefit and that's a real plus. His persona is appealing to most, if not all, people and he is no idealogue.
It is, of course, to the President's great good fortune to be following the most despised American leader in our history. No President has ever been as unpopular abroad as W was and for very good reason. I think the President is doing a good job at doing what he has got to do which is to restore faith in America among our allies and respect among the other nations of the world. There is no reason to believe he will stumble along this path in a general sense and so when it comes to our foreign relations I have no doubt we will be much better off in that realm as a result of electing Obama. We still have the problem of his plan to continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely with a reduced regional strike force of 50,000 soldiers maintaining a fortress in the desert. That is one of the few things out there that could sink his otherwise buoyant ship of foreign relations. Afghanistan/Pakistan is also problematic depending on how things go there. Personally, I think he's headed in the wrong direction in both places and see no way to "win" or even have positive outcomes in either but I hope I'm wrong for the sake of the country.
April 11, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, your arguments would possess more credibility if they were truthful?
April 11, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can say all you want about it, but keeping 50,000 troops in country is not ending the war it is extending it indefinitely. If Bush tried to pull the wool over people's eyes with this they would see right through it. It is preposterous to claim you are ending the war while keeping 50,000 troops there. Preposterous.
April 11, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, they will not be leaving in 2011 either. That is just window dressing for the announcement that will come later as to why they must stay.
April 11, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
you base this assertion on what exactly?
April 14, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the repeated statements that we will have 50,000 troops remaining there. You don't need 50,000 troops to train people. We need to withdraw from Iraq and that means all of our troops (as in zero) not just two thirds of them.
April 14, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi PCA, thanks for the good additions to the story. I always appreciate your thoroughness and research. Hope you are having a good Easter.
April 12, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Oleeb. I, too worry about the power of the military industrial complex. But I do believe that the Iraqis will have it to themselves after 2011. By that time, a good number of realities may have changed, nowt the least of which will be Obama's confidence in himself as commander in chief.
Think positive :-)
April 12, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I genuinely hope you're right, but if 50,000 troops remain it is not a withdrawal at all. If they are gone, that is a withdrawal.
April 14, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink