America in the World

"When freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen."

Perhaps America cannot win. The world protested at George W Bush's America for being an interventionist superpower. Today, in a powerful editorial, The Times of London attacks Barack Obama's foreign policy for a shirking of responsibility to stand with the people of the Arab world and their yearning for freedom:

Obama's lack of leadership: "Addressing cheering crowds in Berlin in July 2008, Mr Obama declared that the burdens of global citizenship united Europe and America. His Administration is shirking those burdens, and presiding over a disturbing erosion of American influence."

Obama's failure to defend freedom: "The Arab world has been roiled by political dissent and violent attempts to suppress it. And when freedom was at stake, the leader of the free world was nowhere to be seen."

Hillary Clinton's feeble diplomacy: "In language as bloodless as its diplomatic impact is feeble, Hillary Clinton declares: “Absent international authorisation, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable.”"

Obama's weakness on Iran: "His indifference to protests in Iran against a patently fraudulent presidential election in 2009 gave an ominous sign of the cast of his diplomacy."

Obama's neglect of the transatlantic relationship: "The transatlantic alliance is founded on shared values rather than personalities. It will survive Mr Obama’s feckless disregard for America’s reputation among its allies and admirers."

Read the full leader in The Times.

A Times leader does not equate to protestors in the streets but if, under Obama's watch, the Arab uprising is crushed, Iran takes decisive steps towards becoming a nuclear power and the special US/UK relationship is broken, who is to say that non-interventionism is at least as deadly?

Obama's America fails as the world's policeman

Under President Obama, America has sought to be liked. It is retreating from its status as the world's policeman.

While the world's attention has been fixed, understandably, on Japan the mercenaries and military under Gaddafi's command have accelerated their brutal attempts to suppress the uprising. First he bombed an ammunition dump, avoiding civilian casualties, to test the west's reaction. When nothing happened he moved to retake control of a few small towns. Again the West did nothing. Now his forces are advancing fearlessly. The consequences for US power are enormous. David Frum is asking the right questions on his blog:

• If Muammar Qaddafi violently suppresses the Libya uprising while America stands by, will Arab and Muslim opinion really believe that we were “neutral”? Or will they believe that we tacitly support Qaddafi – as they believed through the 1990s that we tacitly supported Saddam Hussein?
• What behavior can we expect from a Muammar Qaddafi who survives this uprising? Qaddafi turned to the West after 2003 because he was frightened by the overthrow of Saddam. Having crushed an uprising – and successfully defied an American president – which way will Qaddafi turn next? How confident are you that he won’t revert to terrorism, if not against Europe then against a newly volatile Egypt right next door?
• Iran crushed its uprising in 2009, with impunity. Hezbollah has seized power in Beirut. Hamas holds Gaza. The Muslim Brotherhood is rising in Egypt. Who looks like the ascendant power in the Middle East today? Iran or the United States?
• If you are the king of Saudi Arabia, what conclusions do you draw from the fall of American ally Mubarak and the survival of American enemy Qaddafi?
• If you are the prime minister of Iraq, what conclusions do you draw from the apparent regional ascendency of Iran and the apparent decline of the United States?
• If you are a Libyan insurgent and you are offered arms by international Islamist groups, do you say yes or no?

Read all of his questions here.

The former British Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind has written in today's London Times (£) urging that the Libyan rebels be armed:

"[There] should be an open and urgent supply of the necessary weapons to the insurgents so that they can fight Gaddafi on equal terms. The UN has imposed an arms embargo and some have suggested that this makes illegal any supply of weapons to either side in Libya. The UN Resolution, however, refers to a ban on arms supply to the Libyan “Jamahiriya”, which is Gaddafi’s invented name for the state he controls. It need not prevent supplies to those trying to bring him down. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistake of the Bosnian war — when the UN embargo had much less impact on the Bosnian Serbs who were, already, heavily armed. Having been Defence Secretary at that time I have, in retrospect, felt that that was the most serious mistake made by the UN. Gaddafi could hardly make successful propaganda from such arms supplies to the insurgents. He himself has internationalised the conflict by importing mercenaries from the surrounding countries of North Africa and the Middle East."

British Conservative MP, Mark Pritchard also recommended this course, nearly one week ago.

In his Times piece, Sir Malcolm Rifkind also endorses a no fly zone.

Obama unhappy at release of Lockerbie bomber

Earlier today Barack Obama - echoing Hillary Clinton's earlier remarks - expressed his unhappiness at the decision of the Scottish government to release the Lockerbie bomber on 'compassionate grounds':

For Janet Daley of The Daily Telegraph the release is another proof that Obama has made America more likeable but not necessarily more influential:

"The rehabilitation of America’s standing in the world was going to be one of the great gains, if you remember, of the Obama election victory. No more was the voice of the US to be held in contempt by its old allies. The Obama White House would restore the moral authority of the nation, and thus its influence in the world. So much for that. As the Scottish Justice Secretary intoned his ruling that Megrahi was to be permitted to go free because he was “a dying man”,  most Americans (even of the liberal Obama persuasion) would be wondering what a life sentence meant if it did not involve dying in prison. But the important political lesson will have gone home. The President and his Secretary of State could do nothing - for all their administration’s  supposed global prestige - to prevent what they considered to be an outrage. On yet another score, Mr Obama could not deliver the goods."