US President Barack Obama officially accepted his party’s nomination last week as part of the Democratic party’s convention which took place in Charlotte, North Carolina. There had been a media fixation on both his party and the Republican party’s conventions in the lead-up to the US presidential election this November. Unfortunately, for many following the event, US media coverage was lacklustre with objectivity virtually missing completely. There were two camps and two camps only: Pro-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or pro-Obama. TV channels were abounding with “experts” (in many cases, the same experts who covered the Olympics earlier in the summer) explaining to viewers Obama’s presidential record versus Romney’s promises and policy objectives.
Not surprisingly, local US coverage lacked the most when it came to foreign policy analysis for both candidates. Here was Obama and his army of Democratic party members (including mayors and judges), celebrities and average American “heroes” emphasising the Obama administration’s achievements as far as the economy, job creation, tax breaks and health care reforms go (a natural thing to do at these events), but with little mention of America’s foreign policy performance in the last four years and the country’s international standing. When it came down to it, the DNC [Democratic National Convention] merely celebrated the candidate instead of outlining what made him a better candidate.
Obama, the man who stood for change four years ago, told his audience last Thursday that he wasn’t the change, the people who voted for him were.
“So you see, the election four years ago, wasn’t about me, it was about you. My fellow citizens, you were the change”, he explained. Does this mean, he didn’t fail in reversing the economic downturn or reducing job losses for millions of Americans, but they did? That he didn’t fail on his numerous foreign policy promises, they did?
Perhaps the most overemphasised point at the DNC was the “successful” capture of Osama Bin Laden (one lost count on how many times Bin Laden was mentioned during the three-day event.) It would have been helpful had the president addressed his failed commitments in Afghanistan for example — a country that he said he would pull out from in 2014, regardless of whether or not he leaves a mess behind (it is still mind boggling that he decided to increase the military involvement there, given his campaigning rhetoric!). Moreover, that the US is now desperate to secure a deal with the Taliban (a former enemy) is not only pathetic but very damaging to its credibility in that part of the world.
It feels like it was decades ago that Obama criticised former US president George W. Bush’s militaristic leadership style, urging his voters during his last campaign to choose diplomacy over intervention.
It would have also been useful if Obama (or any expert for that matter) had looked back at some of his promises, including closing down the Guantanamo Bay detention centre — which was decided on his very first day in office as president, but was later completely abandoned.
“Times have changed and so have I,” Obama said. One only has to look at his foreign policy record to agree with that. Remember when Obama delivered his Cairo speech and falsely led the entire Muslim world to believe he was on to something good? Many Middle Easterners went as far as thinking this was the president who would resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without forcing the Palestinian side to compromise on their rightful demands. What about his track record on the Arab Spring? His struggle to support genuine forces for change and abandon his country’s close dictator friends became apparent from the very beginning. His initial support for Tunisia’s Zaine Al Abidine Bin Ali and his silence over Egypt during the early days of the uprising were noted all over the Middle East.
It’s hard to argue that Obama’s convention speech was a good one. It lacked courage on both domestic and international affairs and would have hardly roped in the undecided voters. Even his attacks on the Republican party could have done with a bit of substance; the least he should have done was address the rising tide of racism fuelled by the far right as it pertains to US society and tolerance levels.
Some “experts” are saying Obama’s speech was presidential in that it was more tactical than aggressive — if it means to be presidential is to be safe then sure. Compared to four years ago, he has moved from hope and change to a lot less hope and much more predictability and ultimately disappointment.
