This post is devoted to congratulating President Obama on being able to put together the 47-nation summit on the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Just by way of comparison, it is beyond comprehension that President George W. Bush would have been able to get virtually any of these nations to agree to attend the summit, much less be able to speak articulately and passionately about the substance of the issue, or get the countries to agree that there is a problem, pledge to do something about it and then meet again in a couple of years to assess how well they have done.
While I do not agree with all of President Obama's positions with respect to nuclear weapons and power, there can be no doubt that he is willing to work hard and smartly toward the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. There also can be no doubt that President Obama has earned the trust and respect of other world leaders. He does not preach to them that the United States is perfect and that they better do what we say or else as his predecessor did. President Obama speaks of a threat to all countries and the world and seeks through discussions and cooperation to find solutions to reduce or eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism. He is entitled to a lot of credit for what he has been able to accomplish.
The Rachel Maddow Show had a segment on the summit and its meaning on tonight's program. After Rachael's lead-in she spoke with Joe Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund about the summit. If you do not know of the Ploughshares Fund, go here. They describe themselves as:
Ploughshares Fund is engaged in an aggressive strategy to seize the unprecedented opportunities before us to achieve a safe, secure, nuclear weapon-free world. Combining high-level advocacy, an enhanced grantmaking capacity and our own expertise, we are helping to fundamentally change nuclear weapons policy.I have included the entire clip below. While it is well worth the 8 minutes to watch to whole thing, if you just want to see the discussion with Mr. Cirincione, it starts about 4:50 of the clip. You really should watch what he has to say because he makes a great case for why what President Obama was able to accomplish was so historic.
Also here are a couple of articles that you might want to read on the summit if you have not already read about the summit and its results. The first is a report from the Associated Press by Robert Burns entitled "Summit endorses Obama goal on nuclear security" (here) and the second is a news analysis piece by Peter Baker entitled "Obama Puts His Own Mark on Foreign Policy Issues" from The New York Times (here).
I take some issue with the news analysis piece since part of its analysis is that President Obama has relegated human rights and democracy building to second tier issues. I do not think that one should lump human rights issues and democracy building together. As far as I can tell, the desire to build democracies around the world is a recent rationale by the Bush Administration for its preemptive and unjustified war in Iraq.
Human rights issues can and I believe should be addressed without requiring a democratic form of government. I think it is unfair to say that President Obama has relegated human rights issues to the second tier. His foreign policy has been one of pragmatism, but just because he talks with nations that are terrible about human rights does not mean that he does not care about human rights abuses. As with our own nuclear problems, he is addressing human rights issues knowing that the United States is not perfect. We need to give him more time to see if he can make progress on human rights issues both at home and abroad.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
No comments:
Post a Comment