A year into his presidency, Barack Obama has finally begun to demonstrate qualities that have won praise, even from opponents. Having inherited two military conflicts and a crippling economic crisis, it was inevitable that expectations raised during his election campaign would be followed by some disappointment.
In particular, Obama's decision to reform the national health system was viewed as stubbornness. But in finally overcoming opposition to his health reform plan, he proved the Cassandras wrong.
Days after his success on the health bill, Obama scored an impressive victory in the field of foreign policy. He announced that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals by 30 per cent. That, along with reductions in the permissible number of long-range missiles and a legally binding system to ensure against cheating, made the treaty, signed in Prague on April 8, the most significant in a generation, even if it did not achieve the hoped-for drastic cuts in nuclear arsenals and delivery vehicles.
More importantly, this treaty also represented a fresh beginning in US relations with Russia. Obama intends to pursue a more nuanced policy towards Russia in which Moscow's cooperation on critical issues, such as Iran, Central Asia and Afghanistan, is to be sought by accommodating its interests in the region rather than by encircling it.
It is clear that Obama has decided to make the nuclear issue a major preoccupation of his presidency, but he is currently not as worried about the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation between the major powers as of the frightening possibility of terrorists gaining possession of nuclear arms and material. His strategy is focused on strengthening the anti-nuclear proliferation regime.
This was evident in the administration's Nuclear Posture Review, a document of significance to Pakistan. It underlined nuclear terrorism as “today's most immediate and extreme danger”, claiming that Al Qaeda and its allies were seeking nuclear weapons. It was also critical of countries that desire nuclear weapons, “especially those at odds with the United States, its allies and partners and the broader international community”.
Of special note was the distinct impression that the NPR appeared to accept the legitimacy of Pakistan's nuclear programme and to work with, rather than isolate, Islamabad.
The document commits the US to renewing and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the global non-proliferation regime. There is a hint that at some stage, Pakistan, like India, may be allowed to benefit from nuclear technology to cope with its energy crisis, though this is still only a theoretical possibility in view of likely opposition from Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. It, however, makes no exception for Iran and North Korea, accusing them of having “violated non-proliferation obligations and defied directives of the UN Security Council”.
The NPR also became a curtain raiser for Washington's mini global non-proliferation summit. A declared nuclear weapon state, but not a signatory of the NPT, Pakistan feared that the occasion could be used to apply renewed pressure on it to show flexibility on issues such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
However, our delegation appears to have made it clear that if nuclear non-proliferation was to succeed, it had to be non-discriminatory. Moreover, Pakistan was relieved at Obama's statement expressing confidence in the security of its nuclear programme.
The Washington summit was also meant to provide Obama with extra leverage, ahead of the major NPT review conference next month, especially on the issue of Iran. Here Obama had the good sense to offer direct talks to Iran, but the emphasis remains on forcing Tehran to make major concessions. In fact, the US continues to threaten Iran with the destruction of its enrichment facilities, if not directly then by acquiescing in Israel's adventure, even though a leaked memo admits that the US lacks an effective long-range policy to deal with Iran's steady progress towards nuclear capability.
Obama is right to focus on proliferation and disarmament. But there are two other issues that deserve his attention, for they have an impact far beyond their frontiers. In fact, they represent veritable volcanoes. The first is Kashmir, correctly identified by Obama previously as deserving of US involvement. He appears to have shied away under Indian pressure, though credible reports indicate continuing US interest in promoting a resolution that protects the interests of all parties.
The other is Israel's refusal to allow the emergence of an independent Palestinian state. Obama has acknowledged the anguish this issue causes in the Muslim world and has shown commendable firmness in trying to persuade Israel to halt its illegal settlements to allow peace talks to begin, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far defied him.
Recently, Obama gave fresh evidence of his continuing commitment to promoting a peaceful settlement in the Middle East when he declared that resolving the Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the US”. White House officials hinted that this phrase represented a major shift in how the US views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
When Obama added that conflicts such as the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure”, he was accepting the inherent linkage between the denial of Palestinian statehood and the increasing Islamic extremism.
Obama's thinking has alarmed the American Jewish community, which recently published letters it had sent to Secretary Hillary Clinton, signed by 76 senators and 333 house members, that called upon the administration not to apply pressure on Israel. But if Obama is to leave a legacy worth the expectations of those who conferred the Nobel Peace Prize on him, he must remain steadfast in his efforts.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.