A Leauki's Writings
Published on December 9, 2009 By Leauki In International

My friend Kejda Gjermani has written an excellent article about the change and less unilateralism Obama brought about when he unilaterally changed the terms of a treaty with allies Poland and the Czech Republic.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-missile-defense-betrayal-15293

“Catastrophic for Poland” is how a spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense described the suspension of the program. Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech prime minister who had gone out on a limb with his own electorate by signing the missile-defense treaty two years ago, interpreted the decision as another sign that “the Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before.” He added ruefully that “this is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence.” Lech Walesa, the former president of Poland and founder of Solidarity, observed with bitterness: “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe. The way we are being approached needs to change.”

...

At the time, the Poles believed that the Democrats were just as willing to finance the shield as the Republicans. Representatives of Congress had recently visited Poland and the Czech Republic to relay that much. Specifically, Democrat Ellen Tauscher, then head of the House of Representatives Strategic Forces Subcommittee that would determine funding for missile defense, had reassured the Polish government that the shield would be deployed regardless of the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. Her own opposition to the shield made her assurance in a way even more credible.

It discusses Israel too:

In the wake of the second intifada, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza, preferring that Israel retrench to manageable borders of its choice. Bush supported this strategy by isolating the incorrigible Yasir Arafat and backing Israeli measures against terrorism. He also endorsed the idea of creating a Palestinian state—but only once the Palestinians embraced democratic institutions and abandoned violence. President Bush assured the Israeli government that in the event of a final peace agreement with the Palestinians, the U.S. would not expect Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines and would support Israel’s retention of major settlement blocs.

Five years later, the Obama administration has reneged on these commitments. Current U.S. officials, including two spokesmen and one assistant secretary of state, have refused—on 14 separate occasions—to answer whether this administration considers itself bound by the letter outlining the change in attitude toward settlements that Congress endorsed and Bush handed to Ariel Sharon in 2004. Obama compounded this reversal by insisting that a “freeze on settlement expansion” previously agreed to by Israel be interpreted in the strictest sense, not allowing even for natural growth in the population of existing settlements. This decision created an unnecessary breach with Jerusalem that served to isolate an already beleaguered Israel even further. But it did nothing to advance peace, because it encouraged the Palestinians to demand even greater concessions from Israel as a precondition for resuming peace talks that have little prospect of success.

And the conclusion:

In justifying the abrogation of the missile-defense treaties so casually, Obama cannot but do his own legacy a disservice. No American president gets to have the last word. For the blank slate he has cleared for himself at his predecessor’s expense, Obama will pay by seeing future presidents undo his work on a whim. And as a result of his revisionist stunt, neither this country’s friends nor its enemies can know what to expect from the United States.

 

I do wonder. Is there any ally of the US who actually has better relations with the US now that Obama has changed the US' foreign policy?

And I don't mean non-committed "allies" like France or Germany who do not send help when the US needs help and make demands without contributing.

Which country that actually spoke up for the US and took risks for the US is better off now because of Obama?

 


Comments
on Dec 09, 2009

...

on Dec 09, 2009

Which country that actually spoke up for the US and took risks for the US is better off now because of Obama?

Remember the "Coalition of the Willing" LINK, of which Poland was one of the few to send combat troops to Iraq, well IMO their contributions were "non gratis" on January 21, 2009. Anyone having associated with the previous administration in a positive way, received the cold shoulder in some form or another (Even the Queen of England didn't warrant a bow from the US King of humble, I wonder if Brown finish watching his DVD's yet.). Personally I'd tell Obama to piss up a rope, if I were Poland or the Czech Republic, when he later came round groveling for support in Afghanistan. But they still show the level of high class that has recently evaporated from US foreign policy, and I for one am proud of these allies. Pity the administration just sees them as tools.

on Dec 10, 2009

I think the answer to your question was answered in Norway this morning.  In the end, many who dont give a whit about the USA will smile and shout "Barak Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm".  And then ignore the paper tiger.

Why would Obama care about his friends?  He is trying to make his enemies his friends, his critics his enemies, and his friends irrelevant.

on Dec 10, 2009

I believe the Nobel people already regret their decision. They see, now that the dust has settled, that this is the most impotent US president, perhaps in history. They thought they were buying a thoroughbred and got saddled with an old nag. This push-over can't get support for much of anything of substance, both at home and abroad. The great liberal hope of the world? Hardly.