Barack Obama; Dreams and Audacity

"I know you didn't do this just to win an election, and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the tasks that lie ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of out lifetime- two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for their children's education. There's new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair." 4th November 2008

As I sat in front of my television set that night, and watched as Barack Obama edged closer and closer to the number of electoral college votes needed to secure the Presidency, an optimism spread over me. The Bush years were over, and the danger that a Republican President who would continue with many of the same policies, receded. I will admit, a tear came to my eye when Obama finally crossed the finish line.

To the majority of us in Europe, and indeed all around the world, a new optimism abounded. During George W. Bush's Presidency, the United States had lost a lot of respect. It's principles, and it's economic and military might still carried much sway, but as a beacon to the world, a role that America has created for itself, and much of the west has accepted, had diminished. The events of September 11th 2001 had made the world one with America. The subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, and the removal of the regime that sheltered the planners of the attacks, was supported by the United Nations, and many states became part of the coalition.

However, in May 2002 the Bush administration withdraw its signature from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and in 2005 the withdrawal from the 2002 Kyoto protocol, led many to believe that the United States had withdrawn into itself, and the administrations general antipathy to the United Nations, did not bode well for further international co-operation.
The subsequent invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (dragging the United Kingdom with it) against UN wishes, as well as most states, did not enhance that view. The way the Bush administration was perceived in the world was probably epitomised on May 1st 2003 when George W. Bush declared that the major combat mission in Iraq was finished. 'Mission Accomplished' as the famous banner hoisted upon the USS Abraham Lincoln boasted. This was soon followed by the international disgust at the pictures of torture and humiliation by US personell, and the capture, and shipment of supposed terrorists to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The Bush administration seemed to have an arrogance about it, "You're either with us, or against us," which many did not like. However, by November 4th 2008, troops were still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and no end was in sight.

The election of Barack Obama, his youth, charm, oratorical skills, seemed to herald a bright new era. Perhaps, the election of the first black President, also demonstrated a nation getting to grips with its diversity. However, as the exert from his acceptance speech shows, Obama wasn't saying that it would be easy. He warned also that the road would be long and steep, and that there would be setbacks and false starts. But, his mantra of 'Yes we can!' had resonated to such an extent, the expectations were always going to be impossible to scale, and disappointment inevitable.

Obama was blessed with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, just edging the sixty needed in the Senate to avoid filibuster, after the long, and protracted Minnesota senate race, which was finally conceded in July 2009, a full eight months after Obama's victory. In a way, this was one of the false starts he predicted, as it made the direction he wished to go in uncertain. If he had known he was either going to have a 'super' majority, or not, from the beginning, he would have been able to tailor his approach accordingly.

The American party system, however, is different from what we are used to in the United Kingdom. Although ostensibly there are two main parties, the Republicans (often referred to as the GOP) and Democrats, these are not fixed as we would understand them. Each contains many factions battling for supremacy, with the dominant faction in the Republicans being a Conservative one, with a large voice for the religious right. The Democrats are more classically liberal. In effect, the left right dichotomy is not appropriate, and it would be fairer to describe them as the two wings of the British Conservative Party. Within the party structures the alliances are constantly shifting, and even within the Democratic party, the chances of a much more liberal President like Obama getting his programme through unscathed are minuscule.

On 20th January Obama celebrated his first full year in office, and we're now going to examine whether it has confirmed expectations. In an interview with Time Magazine's Joe Klein (author of 'primary Colors') Obama admitted, "(I)t became apparent very quickly, that we were going to have to make some fast, tough and in some cases politically unpopular decisions to make sure the financial system didn't melt down and we did not spiral into a second Great Depression. Having said that, we've still lost seven million jobs over the last two years. People who are out of work...understandably are frustrated when they see big banks getting money for a problem they helped cause." The Healthcare Bill was brought in against this backdrop, and that his hopes of bipartisan agreement had been quickly dashed. The leading Republican in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, said that they would vote against it, even before ideas were exchanged.

The will to negotiate has to be the first step in politics, in the US, Britain, or anywhere for that matter. Both sides will have positions, but if they're not prepared to shift, then stalemate ensues. In Britain we have experienced this in Northern Ireland, or on a lesser scale battles between unions and management. The Healthcare Plan still hasn't gone through in any form, and the recent victory for Republican Scott Brown, in Edward Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, hasn't improved its chances.

Should this result be taken as a referendum on Obama's first year in office? In his acceptance speech Scott Brown was very critical of the Healthcare Bill, a criticism which polls appear to support, and political style. In a previous statement he said that the election, "Was not a referendum on the President." He was more concerned about the way things were being done. Although this could be read as a coded swipe at Obama, it is also a criticism of the Washington political process. Now that the Democrats do not have sixty Senators, it will be possible for Republicans to just filibuster, or talk out, legislation they oppose. Obama mentioned this in Wednesday's 'State of the Union,' in which he preempted the Republicans by saying, "(W)hat frustrates the American people is a Washington where everyday is Election day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side, a belief that if you lose, I win. neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill, just because they can."

I focused on the healthcare argument, as it is very indicative of the problems and divisions within the American political system. A big programme very important to this President, being held up. I'm by no means an expert on the US health system, and therefore will not judge as to whether the reforms would have the intended effect. However, what is not in doubt, is that vested interests have far too large an influence in American politics, which can only be to the detriment of both sides of the argument. I am sure that most GOP representatives would also like a bill that creates wider coverage, but the leadership appear more interested in making political capital.

One of the first actions Obama performed upon taking office was to sign a order to close Guantanamo Bay. This is still in operation, albeit on a much smaller scale, as the problem of what to do with the remaining prisoners continues. Election policies are notoriously difficult to follow through on, as the Labour government of 1997 to the present day has found. Promises are made with the best intentions, but the difficulty of drafting legislation, the time it takes to push it through, and myriad events, always leave a feeling of dissatisfaction.

Obama has had his successes, the economy has stabilised, and his fiscal initiative has yielded positive results. He admits himself that there is still a long way to go, but the moves are in the right direction. From it's low point the Dow-Jones has risen 30%, and banks are now repaying the money from the stimulus plan. He has signed acts on hate crimes and equal pay. After a lot of thought, or dithering depending on your point of view, he increased troops in Afghanistan, a move with bipartisan support, and troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

More than anything, the biggest difference has been in the United States image overseas. As stated at the beginning, when George W. Bush left office, America's reputation was at an all time low. Leaders now look to the US once again to lead, as the current situation in Haiti has demonstrated. This is more than a matter of geography, America took the initiative in getting state actions off the ground. There have been issues of being too forceful, and when aid flights were held up to allow Hillary Clinton to land, that priorities needed reassessing. However, the earthquake has created a chaotic situation, and some form of order has been brought to the relief effort.

The first year did, however, have its ludicrous moment when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for, "(H)is extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." Although he would probably have preferred to be awarded it for successful promotion of co-operation between the Democrats and Republicans. The real reason he seems to have got it was for not being George W. Bush, an award we would all gratefully share.

The world mainly looks at the United States with benevolence, and not the hostility it did just a year ago. But as Bill Clinton's famous mantra, 'It's the economy stupid' proved, it is Obama's domestic successes and failures upon which he will be judged. Currently his poll ratings have slipped to under 50%, and the mid-terms in November could be difficult. Clinton faced the same problems in 1994, and still swept home in 1996, helped by a very weak Republican candidate. The GOP could well repeat the performance next time out, but new prospects are on the horizon, Scott Brown being touted in some quarters, could make it very interesting.

So, as could be expected, Barack Obama's first year in office has been a mixed bag. It is far too early to judge whether he has been a success or a failure. The expectations were always much more than Obama was going to be able to deliver, especially at this stage. He began his term with extraordinary dreams, and an audacious hope of a new America, but, perhaps, if he was to make a similar speech to his Presidential acceptance one, he might alter his key phrase to, 'Yes we might, possibly, if the situation allows!'

Tony Blair's woes!

Yesterday Tony Blair made his long awaited appearance before the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq war. As the Prime Minister, on March 20th 2003 he takes the main responsibilty for taking Britain into this conflict. Much has been made of this war, and the damage it has done, not only to Mr Blair's reputation, but also that of Britain.

Mr Blair made a spirited and strong defence of his position, but without revealing much about his thought processes, or how decisions were reached. The committee, which has become much more inquisitorial since those who involved in the political process began appearing, is still unable to press home when it gets witnesses in awkward positions.

There were ample opportunities to this when Mr Blair was giving evidence on the lead up to the invasion. He could have been asked how he felt about the February 15th march in London, which was remarkable, not only for its scale, but that it attracted many more than the usual suspects in events of that sort. many people, who were either staunch supporters of the Labour government, or were just not people who interested themselves in political activity, felt moved to join on that day. Did this not have any impact whatsoever? Did it not make him wonder, 'Are we doing the right thing here?'

The people on this march were not saying that Saddam was not a monster, and that they would not be happy to see him removed from power. What they were saying was, we know, and you know, this man had nothing to do with the attacks on America in 2001. This 'war on terror' is to deal with the groups that make attacks on people, groups which are difficult to find and eradicate. Many of them supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and the removal of the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar. Not only because the Afghan government was sheltering the man who planned 9/11, but because the Taliban rule was one which in its treatment of women, and strict rule, was considered a blot on the world's political landscape.

Iraq, however, was different. Whatever we thought of the Saddam regime, it was known not to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, and indeed, was considered an anathema by Al Qaeda because the state was a secular one, and not a Muslim one. The evidence presented to the public to justify the invasion was always inadequate, and there was always a feeling amongst them that it was more about oil, and George W. Bush's personal vendetta. It is now known that there are four personal letters between Mr Blair and President Bush, which may go a long way to explaining the thinking going on, and we need to see these. Mr Blair says there was no secret agreement, and publication may go some way to alleviating these fears.

The post-conflict planning for both of these wars was disgraceful, and no thought was given to this. It seems to have been assumed that the people would be so grateful, that they would just accept American democratic principles, and everything would be hunky dory. Unfortunately, life is not a Hollywood film, which sometimes portrays the world as the United States plaything. The reality is, that countries have their own cultures, and traditions, which whilst not making democracy impossible, means that institutions and policies, need to take those into account.

The panel missed an opportunity to press Mr Blair on this, and he merely admitted that post-conflict planning could have been better. The arguments around the September 2002 dossier, or the 'dodgy dossier', has not been properly explored at all, despite the time spent on it. Mr Blair yesterday said it could have been clearer, but was not asked what he meant by that. There were also no questions asking who provided the information, and what was done to check its veracity. Alistair Campbell denied that the information had been taken off the internet, but was from a Middle-East journal. This may well be true, but he wasn't asked which journal, so that the article could be checked out. Whether or not the dossier was 'sexed up' as Andrew Gilligan described it, the 45 minute claim needs much more clarification.

This goes to the heart of the legal arguments, as it was the supposed existence of these weapons that put British interests and security at risk. The interpretation of 1441 needs to be cleared up, and the evidence that convinced Lord Goldsmith that invasion without a second resolution would be legitimate. The Dutch court recently declared that it wasn't, why does Mr Blair still believe this to be an inaccurate assessment?

Finally, the Iraq Inquiry has done a much better job to date, than many thought it would. However, it lacks a real inquisitorial drive, and because its remit does not allow it to apportion blame, this will always make its final report unsatisfactory. These perameters should be expanded to allow it to do so, thereby ensuring a report that can reach starker conclusions. I didn't expect Mr Blair to apologise for the war, as that would be an admission that it was wrong, and he firmly believes he was right. However, he could apologise for the suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people, the loss of life of British servicemen and women, and that he simply got the information wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and the mistakes of political leaders have greater impact. A little humility would go a long way to restoring Mr Blair's and Britain's reputations.