Barack Obama last week visited the UK and Ireland as part of his tour of Europe. Him and US's First Lady Michelle Obama went to see the royal family and their new addition, Duchess of Cambridge as well as seeing Prime Minister and his wife Samantha Cameron. The visit lasted half a week. In addition, the Obama's visited a village which was a part of the President's ancestry.
During Obama's visit, he played table tennis with David Cameron and together served a barbecue, 10 Downing Street style in scorching weather conditions whilst the rest of the UK had to suffer with torrential rain. The President made a historic speech at Westminster Hall, the first President to have done so.
In this speech, he had raised three significant points. He emphasised the US and UK have a "special relationship" and reassuring the public the Libyan mission is going well and was confident Gaddafi regime will be gone. He also announced the US are "the greatest catalyst for global action".
Barack Obama has three points he genuinely felt were true. A speech with no policy making, a speech which proved popular in the UK. Obama's global address had contrasting views at his home country. His address, to me had three faults.
First fault:
This "special relationship" will lead to destruction. I remember watching the film The Special Relationship starring Michael Sheen and Dennis Quaid acting as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton respectively, reflecting their partnership from the time Blair was UK Prime Minister in 1997 to the end of Clinton's reign as US President in 2000. That relationship to Clinton was "special" as he emphasised during their time together but Blair appeared to be friends with the President for good PR purposes. Could this be the same with Obama and Cameron? There are doubts to how long this relationship will last. They both, supposedly have different political values with Obama being a Democrat and Cameron, a Conservative.
Also, I feel that a relationship in politics should not be "special". Obama and Cameron's table tennis game at a school in south London and the barbecue was not what I call professional. I mean, these men are supposed to be leading countries which have are arguably the most influential in the world. I don't think their intentions was to make politics "fun" because it is not - it's serious business.
Is the relationship "essential" as what some suggest? No. It never used to be. UK said no to go to Vietnam and when Thatcher was around, yes both countries got along with each other but it was not essential. From Blair/Bush onwards, the press have made out that the UK/US partnership is important. It shouldn't be. Both countries have a mind of their own and surely do not need seek approval from other countries of their actions.
Second fault:
Barack Obama reassured the public that their mission in Libya is going to plan. It isn't. They are no where near getting Colonel Gaddafi. I know it's early stages but we're two months into this war already and it has been said that the Libyan leader is hiding in hospitals in Tripoli. If he is, why aren't NATO going to these hospitals finding him rather than bombing cities, harming the civilians who are innocent? The cost of war is unknown and there is no news from the west of Libya's suffering. Middle East press suggests that this war isn't doing anything for the people living there. Nothing is happening and the quicker this war ends, the better.
Reports now suggest that Gaddafi has met publically with South African President Jacob Zuma. Not in a hospital then...
Third fault:
The governments in UK and US are focusing far too much on the Middle East when there are lots of problems in their home. The recession is still here and with very little economy growth in the last six months, unemployment remains high and house prices are still rock bottom. Ok, Gordon Brown made mistakes, but other than regrettable cuts, nothing else has been done to tackle the problem.
Barack Obama also has problems. His public are losing faith in him due to his full focus on the Middle East and they are starting to look at options to replace him such as... Sarah Palin! She has proved herself popular again as she is currently touring the States. The general election is less than 18 months away and Obama has to be cautious of who he is up against. If he wants to be President after the 2012 elections, he has to please his audience. As it stands, Democrats are falling behind in the polls.
Former senior member of the CIA, Michael Scheuer has criticised Obama and Cameron's actions on the war on terror saying they have "no clue" of what they are doing. After the death of Osama bin Laden, nothing much has been done to tackle terrorism and the public in America are starting to worry regarding a possible revenge by al-Qaeda. No reassurance has been made by Obama or any other country leader and if US are the "the greatest catalyst for global action", they need to do react on the issue quickly. Cameron and Obama have to be less friends, and more like colleagues.
During Obama's visit, he played table tennis with David Cameron and together served a barbecue, 10 Downing Street style in scorching weather conditions whilst the rest of the UK had to suffer with torrential rain. The President made a historic speech at Westminster Hall, the first President to have done so.
In this speech, he had raised three significant points. He emphasised the US and UK have a "special relationship" and reassuring the public the Libyan mission is going well and was confident Gaddafi regime will be gone. He also announced the US are "the greatest catalyst for global action".
Barack Obama has three points he genuinely felt were true. A speech with no policy making, a speech which proved popular in the UK. Obama's global address had contrasting views at his home country. His address, to me had three faults.
First fault:
This "special relationship" will lead to destruction. I remember watching the film The Special Relationship starring Michael Sheen and Dennis Quaid acting as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton respectively, reflecting their partnership from the time Blair was UK Prime Minister in 1997 to the end of Clinton's reign as US President in 2000. That relationship to Clinton was "special" as he emphasised during their time together but Blair appeared to be friends with the President for good PR purposes. Could this be the same with Obama and Cameron? There are doubts to how long this relationship will last. They both, supposedly have different political values with Obama being a Democrat and Cameron, a Conservative.
Also, I feel that a relationship in politics should not be "special". Obama and Cameron's table tennis game at a school in south London and the barbecue was not what I call professional. I mean, these men are supposed to be leading countries which have are arguably the most influential in the world. I don't think their intentions was to make politics "fun" because it is not - it's serious business.
Is the relationship "essential" as what some suggest? No. It never used to be. UK said no to go to Vietnam and when Thatcher was around, yes both countries got along with each other but it was not essential. From Blair/Bush onwards, the press have made out that the UK/US partnership is important. It shouldn't be. Both countries have a mind of their own and surely do not need seek approval from other countries of their actions.
Second fault:
Barack Obama reassured the public that their mission in Libya is going to plan. It isn't. They are no where near getting Colonel Gaddafi. I know it's early stages but we're two months into this war already and it has been said that the Libyan leader is hiding in hospitals in Tripoli. If he is, why aren't NATO going to these hospitals finding him rather than bombing cities, harming the civilians who are innocent? The cost of war is unknown and there is no news from the west of Libya's suffering. Middle East press suggests that this war isn't doing anything for the people living there. Nothing is happening and the quicker this war ends, the better.
Reports now suggest that Gaddafi has met publically with South African President Jacob Zuma. Not in a hospital then...
Third fault:
The governments in UK and US are focusing far too much on the Middle East when there are lots of problems in their home. The recession is still here and with very little economy growth in the last six months, unemployment remains high and house prices are still rock bottom. Ok, Gordon Brown made mistakes, but other than regrettable cuts, nothing else has been done to tackle the problem.
Barack Obama also has problems. His public are losing faith in him due to his full focus on the Middle East and they are starting to look at options to replace him such as... Sarah Palin! She has proved herself popular again as she is currently touring the States. The general election is less than 18 months away and Obama has to be cautious of who he is up against. If he wants to be President after the 2012 elections, he has to please his audience. As it stands, Democrats are falling behind in the polls.
Former senior member of the CIA, Michael Scheuer has criticised Obama and Cameron's actions on the war on terror saying they have "no clue" of what they are doing. After the death of Osama bin Laden, nothing much has been done to tackle terrorism and the public in America are starting to worry regarding a possible revenge by al-Qaeda. No reassurance has been made by Obama or any other country leader and if US are the "the greatest catalyst for global action", they need to do react on the issue quickly. Cameron and Obama have to be less friends, and more like colleagues.
Comments
Post a Comment