- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
October 14, 2009
Exclusive: Presidential Credibility Rests on Showing Progress – So Where’s the Progress?
James Carafano, PhD, Presidential Policy: Does It Make the Grade?
Obama’s pending peace prize was the “big news” overshadowing everything else last week on the foreign policy front. The Nobel Prize Committee awarded the prize to President Obama on the basis of hope for the future rather than achievements of the past. There is a real downside to giving the president a prize before he actually does anything. Public diplomacy, nuclear disarmament, working through the UN, and the quest for Palestinian-Israeli peace were all put forward as hallmarks of the Obama way. The problem is that all these instruments rely on cooperation and dependence on them gives enormous power to the people with whom you have to cooperate.
The President’s credibility rests not only on showing progress, but also using these tools to advance the cause of peace. Those who he needs to cooperate can now demand a pretty high price for playing ball or choose to without collaboration to embarrass the White House. It increases the potential to hold the White House hostage. The Kremlin’s hand, for example, has been greatly strengthened. Negotiating arms control treaties are the centerpiece of Obama’s road to nuclear zero. The Russians can now demand a high price to make a deal, knowing that if the White House walks away it will cost the President’s program a good deal of credibility.
It could actually be argued that the Nobel Prize Committee was short-sighted, actually making the cause of peace harder by weakening the President’s flexibility in trying to drive the hard bargains required to make real progress.
“The really interesting questions,” writes The Heritage Foundation’s Helle Dale, “will be, of course, whether the Nobel Peace Prize will change President Obama’s style of diplomacy and indeed whether it will make other nations more inclined to follow where he wants to lead. So far the president’s international superstardom has not translated into cooperation or achievements that can be quantified, whether it be support from European leaders in Afghanistan, the Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics or indeed for his ideas on climate change which were coolly received at the General Assembly of the United Nations in September.” Odds are winning the prize will give the president little real clout in dealing with tough global issues.
On the home front, the President should spend less worrying about what’s happening in Oslo and more on what’s happening in the Congress. As we feared, legislation has been proposed to gut key provisions of the Patriot Act. That is a big mistake. Curbing the Patriot Act authorities is likely to make us much more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. In addition, it’s not necessary. Heritage homeland security analyst Jena McNeill points out, “[d]espite repeated attempts to demonstrate abuse, little evidence has ever been proffered to demonstrate any Patriot Act misuse. In fact, at times the Patriot Act offers significantly more protections than available under common criminal investigations.” The White House needs to spend more time making sure Congress does not gut necessary counterterrorism tools.
The administration’s grade for the week is “B” for ambivalent.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (2)
He hasn't shown any progress. In fact one would wonder just how this silly award will endanger our country.
IT'S LIKE BOOBS ON A BULL!!!
| Print This E-mail This |
|
