What has really changed in Washington since January in all areas. And what the American president did not want, or could move.
One hundred days after his inauguration in January, Barack Obama retains a level of popularity roughly equivalent to that of … George Bush, after his first hundred days in the White House!
Just over 60%. Paradoxically, the success of Obama is based largely on its speed to be able to change or reverse Bush’s policy choices: close the cells of Guantánamo and secret prisons abroad, the prohibition of torture, timetable for the withdrawal of forces U.S. in Iraq, permission to use federal funds for stem cell research, medical coverage for children, equal pay between the sexes, cooperation with the rest of the world’s climate change …
During his first television interview to 60 Minutes, the CBS People magazine, Obama was given that I have read with great interest regarding the first hundred days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). This period has become legendary. All his successors have been judged by what they had accomplished during their first months at the White House.
Taking the head of a country in crisis, FDR had to act quickly. The New Deal, a series of laws to allow America to rebound, would see the day in record time. Roosevelt who, taking an oath, did not know too what it would do, had been an improviser of genius. Among the fifteen laws adopted very quickly, one was neither financial nor economic. Roosevelt told one of his colleagues: “It is time to drink a beer. With this humorous observation, he asked Congress to amend the Constitution and end the prohibition. This was done.
Faced with an economic crisis reminiscent of the 1930s, Barack Obama has shown any speed rooseveltienne to cope. This case has absorbed much of his first months at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He too has managed to approve a number of laws in favor of the takeover plan rescue plan for more than $ 800 billion, a mégabudget to finance public works, clean energy and education.
Obama sweeps objections. This generous infusion of federal dollars (more substantially than Roosevelt) was, in his opinion, necessary, even if it dangerously increases the deficit and national debt.
It is still too early to know if its interventionist strategy will pay off. The most optimistic experts, including Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, predicted an improvement by the end of the year. A slight wave of optimism seems to blow even in Washington.
The unemployment rate (8.5% in March) could still increase further. If the Americans have, in general, the major plan, they were, however, very hostile to the rescue of banks to car manufacturers. But they have more blame for this Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the president himself. An AP poll Obama credits the confidence of 48% of Americans calling for the United States “in the right direction,” while 44% hold the opposite view.
On defense and diplomacy, the changes are often more cosmetic than real transformation. Close Guantánamo, certainly. Bush also wished. But where to put the prisoners? Governors do not want it in their state. The allies are deaf. France offers generous to accept an Algerian. As for returning prisoners to their country, often exposing them to a treatment they would regret their Cuban prison.
A ban on the use of torture against suspects feel good to the new administration, but it does not preclude the possibility to use them, if it is in the interest of national security.
The withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq is set in the summer of 2010. But up to 50 000 U.S. military personnel could be stationed there until December 2011, the date of departure had accepted George Bush, contained in agreements between Washington and Baghdad.
Gradual withdrawal from Iraq but reinforcements in Afghanistan, with a surge of 21 000 soldiers and the continuation of the war to Pakistan. Obama did not interrupt the monitoring missions and bombing U.S. drones inside Pakistani territory, raising the anger of local people.
Obama has not yet received a concession to Tehran
The real change in American foreign policy based on the new tone. Obama has shown during his recent trips abroad that have earned it, overall, a “good”. In London, Strasbourg, Prague, Istanbul and Ankara, he demonstrated a humility that has pleased his interlocutors, but angered conservatives.
In all, Obama said: “I am not here to give lessons. I came to listen. He held the same modest speech at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. Preceded by his decision to relax sanctions against Cuba, he hoped to be well treated. He nevertheless had to endure a speech from fiercely anti-Nicaraguan Daniel Ortega and receive an embarrassing now Hugo Chávez: the book from a Uruguayan journalist denouncing five centuries of the pillage of Latin America by foreign powers, including United States.
The President’s politeness displayed outside its borders and its policy of the outstretched hand are probably necessary to create a new climate, with its allies as with his opponents. It is for him to restore to America a more favorable image. These efforts will be paid back?
Some commentators of all stripes are beginning to worry about. So far, Barack Obama took beautiful game of blaming his predecessor.
But, as noted by Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post, Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, the fratricidal fighting in the Middle East, Russian belligerence, nuclear weapons in North Korean and Iranian nuclear program.
When the new special envoy for North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, has tried to convince Pyongyang to abandon testing a new missile, he promised in exchange for the bilateral negotiations and economic benefits, Kim Jong-il has responded by launching the rocket, just when Obama, in Prague, denouncing the dangers of nuclear proliferation. Bush had steadfastly refused to offer to reward the North Koreans for their misbehavior.
Another of Obama special envoy, George Mitchell, had little more success in the Middle Orient.L lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks was attributed to lack of attention by the Bush administration in this case, because of Iraq. Obama had promised to get involved at the outset of his presidency. Mitchell has yet obtained any concessions, either in one camp or the other.
Republicans camped in a stubborn opposition
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not much impressed by the olive branch extended by his American counterpart. Tehran continues to expand its enrichment plant at Natanz uranium and sentenced to eight years in prison journalist Iranian-American charged with espionage.
Hillary Clinton proposes to the Russians to forget the tensions passées.Obama offers Start a new arms control, agreeing to put aside for the moment, the planned deployment of a missile shield in central Europe. Such niceties did not prevent the Kremlin massing troops on the borders of Georgia, again threatened with invasion.
Barack Obama may regret George W. Bush. If he could blame for all these problems during its first hundred days, he must now take responsibility. The biggest disappointment, probably the largest failure of Barack Obama, is its inability to attract Republicans to his camp. Its opening is long past. It failed to create the alliance of two parties he wanted. Republicans camped in a stubborn opposition. They rely on the failure of its economic policy, its diplomacy “naive” to return. It is a risky bet. Americans do not like partisan bickering and would rather see the two parties cooperate.
Uncategorized | April 30, 2009 | 
Comments (0) 