Most observers must have been shaken from their self-delusion about Barack Obama’s supposedly more “humane and wise approach to foreign policy” after he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on the 4th June 2008. There is nothing pacifist nor anything anti-imperialist about the man’s political outlook, less so about his foreign policy orientation. Beneath that placid appearance of the-man-next-door lies the same ruthless determination to pursue US imperialism’s interests that was such a mark of distinction of all other presidential servants of American capitalism. It is an orientation no less hostile to the aspirations of the Palestinian masses. Barack Obama holds a more intelligent and competent execution of imperialist Realpolitic.
He proposes a more flexible mixture of diplomacy, threats and military force than that employed by the Bush administration. One must ask, does Obama’s foreign policy represent a change from that of the current US administration? More importantly, is it a break from the latter? Let’s look at the main thrust of the man’s address more closely:
In support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, this is what he had to say: “We know the establishment of Israel was just and necessary…as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.” Making clear his opposition to all Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, he told his audience that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”. What probably astounded most pundits was Obama’s rubbishing of the elected government of Gaza. He refuses point blank to negotiate with it. He pledged a massive level of US military assistance to Israel, saying he would ensure Israel’s “qualitative military advantage” over other countries in the region. A memorandum of understanding will be signed by himself, he said, guaranteeing $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next ten years. Where is the shift?, we might ask, with much justification.
Barack Obama’s main innovation in the foreign policy field is not so much a shift in strategy as it is a cynical calculation that the show of diplomacy will make it easier for Washington, should it decide to attack Iran, to rope in US and world public opinion behind a wider Middle East war. In his own words: “Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.” Still waiting to hear what the shift is? Well…”That is the change we need in our foreign policy”, Democratic Party US presidential nominee Barack Obama clarifies the matter.
The political context of this “change in our foreign policy” is telling. On the one hand it reflects a growing importance the financial and political elite of the US give to a tacit change in relations with Iran. Having installed the puppet Shiite regime (with historically close ties with Iran) in Iraq, the US ruling class now has a far greater problem. Iraq no longer plays its traditional role as military counterweight to Iran in the region and it (the US bourgeoisie) now has to keep close attention to the opposition to aggression to Iran within its own puppet government. On the other hand, Obama’s foreign policy outlook is shaped by growing dissatisfaction of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war within the US financial elite and significant sections of the policy establishment.
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s foreign policy vision does signal a change, but only insofar the sign above the Oval Office will read: “Under new management. Open for business as usual”. This, truly, is changing everything so that everything remains the same.
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
