The recent Libya crisis has brought tremendous dramatic changes in Obama’s new geopolitical landscape. Though president Obama is an enthusiastic advocate of Washington’s superpower, but he is struggling hard to stabilize his domestic policy in order to restore his lost popularity for a second term. The history is quite familiar why Washington does not wait on London, Moscow and Beijing to do its business. The recent leadership roles of Paris and London have shown that Europe is ready to take a bigger role and responsibility and can focus effectively on international military to replace the American leadership.
Mr. Obama though always wants the oval office to play lead role and to renew its relinquishing global geopolitics, but his recent speech on reassignment of leadership surprised many both at home and abroad. Mr. Obama at the state department day speech in January 2009 added that:
“Let there be no doubt about America’s commitment to lead. We can no longer afford drift, and we can no longer afford delay, nor can we cede ground to those who seek destruction. A new era of American leadership is at hand, and the hard work has just begun.”
He recently said on Libya crisis:
“American leadership is essential”.
“Our goal is focused, our cause is just”, he further added.
It is no doubt that the US remains the world’s indispensable power after the cold war of 45 years prolonged protracted conflict and constant tension with Russia. The world policy makers agree that Pentagon is making continuous efforts to shape the global military and defense but the recent speech of Obama has questioned many why the US is relinquishing to take the lead role. Mr. Obama has already told the world leaders at U. N. General Assembly in 2009 -
“Those who “used to chastise America for acting alone in the world” it is time for a true “global response to global challenges,” including climate change, terrorism, endless conflicts and poverty.”
The Washington is now wishing allies to share responsibilities and help to solve the world problems with cooperation and shared leadership. Mr. Obama further added -
“We have sought in word and deed a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility.”
The Libyan venture certainly provides a solid platform to calculate the financial price of leadership and political cost of consequence. Though the analysts are expressing the leadership role a mere political motivation and blaming Obama not to act effectively, on the other hand, Mr. Serkozy’s dramatic venture on Paris’s international leadership role has been seen as a mere self-promotion ahead of French presidential election. London’s role on Libya clearly focuses on why Mr. Cameroon is insisting a ‘no-fly zone’ and Mr. Prime Minister recently told the House of Commons that the alliance had a “tried and tested machinery” for running such a complex multi-national mission. The Arab world’s active involvement on international alliance for the first time, has raised many unanswered questions on american leadership. The first time NATO leadership has certainly put 'informal anguished' to the liberals and has raised some inducive questions on future shape of America's global geopolitics.
The political pundits and the policy analysts are describing Mr. Obama as the weakest US leader ever and a dither. Though his national security advisors are continuously advising him, but the white house is facing a serious debate on its role on Libya crisis. The Obama doctrine has failed to give a clear and concise view to the conservative Americans. Is American leadership going to be collapsed? Will Pentagon lead the international defense? Will Moscow and Beijing replace the US global policy or the talkative Europe will act to lead and shape international military order? Will NATO able to solve the bitter situation of Libya? The final question is who will be answerable for the loss of life of hundreds of innocent people?These questions remain now unanswerable.
View the blog at : http://wp.me/p1b2Z5-28
Picture courtesy: scrapetv.com