Anne Applebaum, a very thoughtful writer and scholar, who has written a major book on the Gulag in Russia, has this to say about Obama's European trip:
Still, someone has to say it: Although some things went well on this trip, some things went badly. The centerpiece of the visit, Obama's keynote foreign policy speech in Prague -- leaked in advance, billed as a major statement -- was, to put it bluntly, peculiar. He used it to call for "a world without nuclear weapons" and a new series of arms control negotiations with Russia. This was not wrong, necessarily, and not evil. But it was strange.
I too felt that was a strange way to put it. Although I am definitely very supportive of his initiative with Russia and the effort to get control of both the superpower arsenals and the spread of weapons around the world, I agree that to talk of complete nuclear disarmament could well be counterproductive. It makes those who might support a significant reduction and control effort dubious about whether this is a realistic proposal or a madcap, utopian effort which is not remotely possible.
It's the difference between true reform and complete revolution, between reducing war and violence and creating the Kingdom of God on earth. I think Obama knows this, as a Niebuhrian realist and centrist in many things. So why did he make such a statement? Was it to somehow inspire the peoples of the world to support his attempt to reduce the levels of nuclear weapons? Does he really think this is an achievable goal in his time in office (apparently not)? Is this just a case of reaching for the stars so that you have a goal? Could it have been his attempt to woo the left in America, who have been increasingly upset by his Af-Pak policies and financial proposals?
I know this could sound like nit-picking in what is otherwise a very worthy goal. Still, I'm left wondering.
No comments:
Post a Comment