An Indian columnist notices how Obama is turning allies into enemies and enemies into allies -- with the only beneficiaries being jihad states like Iran and rapidly Islamizing polities like Pakistan. "Arrogant Obama alienates friends," by Swapan Dasgupta for the Daily Pioneer, April 11 (thanks to Sanjay):
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sits with the assembled world leaders at the Nuclear Security Conference in Washington, DC, he should ponder over one notable absentee: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Once the US's most steadfast ally and a country with which it enjoyed a 'special relationship', Israel's relationship with Washington has taken a precipitate nosedive.There are many who will undoubtedly view Netanyahu's absence to Israeli evasion over its nuclear ambivalence. This may undoubtedly be a factor but Israel has in the past faced this ticklish question with a combination of deft diplomacy and nationalist brazenness. What is different about today's Washington that made the otherwise pugnacious Netanyahu opt out of an important international gathering (although Israel will be nominally represented)?
The answer is simple: President Barack Obama.
In the past few months the international grapevine has been buzzing with tales of a new, abrasive style of diplomacy that has become the signature tune of the Obama Administration. It may have been understandable if this departure from niceties had been confined to dealings with countries such as Iran and Venezuela that don't miss any opportunity to take side swipes at the US. Intriguingly, Obama appears to have reserved his acid tongue for those who are considered close allies of the US. [...]
Nor was Obama's peremptoriness limited to Netanyahu. On March 28, Obama made a sudden visit to Kabul, partly to cheer American forces stationed there and partly to confer with President Hamid Karzai. According to reports carefully leaked by the American side, Obama read Karzai the proverbial riot act. He is said to have told him that the US found his style of governance quite unacceptable and the levels of corruption well beyond the threshold of tolerance. He was told to shape up or ship out.
Obama's sharp tongue lashing hasn't gone down well in Afghanistan. Karzai has rightly been offended by Obama's discourtesy and has lost no opportunity to lash out at the West. He has sought to befriend Iran, caution the US against any unilateral offensive on Kandahar and even let it be known that sheer exasperation with American arrogance may drive him into the arms of the Taliban. The US has hit back by calling Karzai's mental stability into question and even hinting that he is suffering the effects of hallucinatory drugs. Rarely has the relationship between two allies plummeted to such incredible depths.
For all practical purposes the US has said its triple talaq to Karzai.
The "triple talaq" refers to the way in which a Muslim divorces his wife: he says to her "talaq" -- you are divorced. If he says it to her three times, the divorce is irrevocable and the couple cannot reconcile unless and until she marries another man, consummates that marriage, and is divorced by him.
The question is: When will the elected Afghan President be replaced by a compliant nominee of the US and its outsourced partner, Pakistan? [...]These are concerns that the Indian Prime Minister should bear in mind during his US visit. It has now emerged that it was a peremptory Obama directive to get India and Pakistan to improve relations that was a factor behind the useless meeting of Foreign Secretaries last month. Whether India chooses to engage with Pakistan after Islamabad's foot-dragging over the 26/11 culprits is not a matter that should be of obsessive concern to the White House. Of course, the US can give its suggestions but paying heed to the White House's 'directive' diplomacy will not be appreciated within India. This may explain why the US-India bonhomie that surrounded the passage of the nuclear deal has been replaced by a climate of suspicion which, if allowed to fester, could so easily turn into hostility....
Obama's Global Failure
Our allies hate him. Our enemies are laughing at him. Nearly two years after Obama's World Tour in which he did his best to convince voters that he understood global challenges with a high profile tour of a lot of foreign countries (a approach that if it worked should convincingly make every internationally famous rock star a foreign policy expert), his biggest global accomplishment is still his ability to travel around the world to high profile destinations on the taxpayer's shrinking dime.
His attempts at diplomacy consisted of delivering vicious slaps across the faces of longtime allies, from England to Israel, and pathetic love notes to tyrants in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, who responded by openly mocking him.
Last week, in a scene almost worthy of the Godfather, Russia decided to stage a coup in Kyrgyzstan at the same time that Obama was signing a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia's Medvedev.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/04/obamas-global-failure.html
Read this and post it elsewhere.
More and more people, and allies of America, are realising that Obama's America is no longer a trusted friend and ally.
A new administration will have a lot of work to do, just to soothe ruffled feathers, and really make good, to undo the damage Obama has done to America, till now. He has a lot more potential of mischief in him yet before he is done.
There is an as yet unsubstantiated report circulating that Sarkozy described Obama as dangerously mentally unbalanced following their meeting a few weeks back. Though the source -- the online EU Times -- is reportedly reliable, it would hardly be a surprise if the story turned out to be essentially true.
On the down-side, India will draw closer to China. On the plus-side, it will also be drawn even closer to Israel. Both are democracies contending with Islamic extremists, both advancing economically after opening their markets in the 1990s, both developing their own advanced military systems, and both disrespected by the current US administration. (Israel is now the #1 or #2 supplier of defense hardware to India, and many Israelis travel to or through India after their army service.)
Re lilredbird's comments, I don't know if Sarkozy described Obama as "dangerously mentally unbalanced", but we do know Sarkozy considered Obama to be "naive" after pushing for nuclear disarmament at the UN.
They may hate him now but how many of our allies fell all over themselves when Obama deigned to campaign amongst them? Granted, some of them had common sense but not all. How many of them wished for someone more "sophisticated" and more "internationalist" than Bush? Remember the British tabloid that called Bush voters "dumb". They all got what they asked for.
Next time, let them be more careful what they wish for. They just might get it.
PMK wrote:
They may hate him now but how many of our allies fell all over themselves when Obama deigned to campaign amongst them? Granted, some of them had common sense but not all. How many of them wished for someone more "sophisticated" and more "internationalist" than Bush?
....................
Exactly, PMK—how quickly they forget. I think the Europeans assumed Obama was rejecting "American exceptionalism" for a pan-Western approach. In reality, he is rejecting not just the US, but her allies as well.
Oh, he's "internationalist", all right—but he doesn't want to suck up to our at least generally democratic and decent allies—the sort of "internationalism" he has in mind is more Cairo than London or Paris, and more Tehran than Jerusalem.
More:
In the past few months the international grapevine has been buzzing with tales of a new, abrasive style of diplomacy that has become the signature tune of the Obama Administration. It may have been understandable if this departure from niceties had been confined to dealings with countries such as Iran and Venezuela that don't miss any opportunity to take side swipes at the US. Intriguingly, Obama appears to have reserved his acid tongue for those who are considered close allies of the US.
....................
Not only has Obama's "abrasive style of diplomacy" not been "confined" to dealings with Iran and Venezuela—Iran and Venezuela have been *exempt* from any criticism—in the wake of Chavez' increasing crushing of dissent, and even—shockingly—in the wake of Iran's vicious crackdown on protesters against the unfree presidential elections of last year—even when they have included imprisonment and murder of their own people.
The above column by Swapan Dasgupta is generally very insightful. There is only one passage I would take issue with:
Nor was Obama's peremptoriness limited to Netanyahu. On March 28, Obama made a sudden visit to Kabul, partly to cheer American forces stationed there and partly to confer with President Hamid Karzai. According to reports carefully leaked by the American side, Obama read Karzai the proverbial riot act. He is said to have told him that the US found his style of governance quite unacceptable and the levels of corruption well beyond the threshold of tolerance. He was told to shape up or ship out.
Obama's sharp tongue lashing hasn't gone down well in Afghanistan. Karzai has rightly been offended by Obama's discourtesy and has lost no opportunity to lash out at the West. He has sought to befriend Iran, caution the US against any unilateral offensive on Kandahar and even let it be known that sheer exasperation with American arrogance may drive him into the arms of the Taliban.
....................
Somehow I don't recall the Queen of England or Benjamin Netanyahu vowing to join anti-American terrorists in the wake of slights by President Obama—nor are they likely to. But with Muslims, resorting to the brutality of Jihad—or at least threatening to if the Jizya is not flowing freely enough—is always an option.
Didn't you see al the photos of him with halos surrounding his head?
The press knew what he was and wanted him to transform America in to the dream they collected shared from their various experiences with illegal, illicit and otherwise illegal drugs. For them, all we have to do is wish it hard enough and it will be. We need only show our enemies, that have sworn to kill us, that we have thrown down our arms and they will immediately follow suit. They would, therefore...our enemies must as well.
Morons. Dreamers. France gave that a whirl as well as many others prior. Damn stupid barbarians came along and spoiled the whole thing.
History for the liberal began when they were born.
No islam...Know Peace.
Know islam...throw up.
Gravenimage, Afghanistan is a quagmire. It's a Islamic hellhole. No matter what we do, the place is a corrupt stagnant pond filled with vile creatures. We have our man there and we are telling him to go swim in this nice fresh pond. No matter what the Americans do there, build roads, schools, or swimming pools, the place is going to eventually revert to a 3rd world backwards land filled with knuckle dragging pushtoons/ taliban.
Old Karzai knows the hard cold reality, obama and co are living in a fantasy world. old Karzai has his luggage packed and has made plans to spirit him and his family to another country. Let obama go there are run this hellhole.
Thanks again to all the dopes out there who voted for the Anointed One. McCain would have been only average or so, but that compared to Obama would look terrific right now. The man is on schedule to do more harm to America than any single American in all of American history. Again, Obama voters, thanks for nothing.
As Daniel Greenfield blog says (link above). 'O' is an idea-loge and does not have the United States interest in any thing he does or says. He does not know how the game is played or if he does he thinks he does not have to follow the rules.
He is in a fantasy lefturd world. He thinks with his polished teleprompter speaking style he will influenced and pursuance the world to follow him. He does not know how to use political power at an international level.
And remember his philosophy in maintained with lies and deceit. It is the only thing that he knows and does it well. The only thing that matters is his power and control and everything can be thrown under the bus.
That's the one silver lining to all this - other than Netanyahu, most of the other leaders/people who are being shafted by Obama are those who were cheering him when he was campaigning.
I for one don't feel remotely sorry for Gordon Brown or UK, whether it's the 25 CDs or Her Royal Clinton promising to re-open a can of worms re: Falklands, er Malvinas - as you point out, not just them, but almost UK as a whole has been guilty like rest of Europe of calling Bush 'cowboy', 'dumb', 'unilateral' and what have you. Well, now they have a president who thought would be like them, and who it turns out cannot stand them [LOL] So if all of Europe starts seeing an American president who disdains them, and has degrees from Harvard and elsewhere to back up his disdain, I can't help but chuckle.
Same goes w/ India, or rather Indians - Indians everywhere I've met still have orgasms about Obama. Well, India too was rooting for him before the election, and now they see a president who prefers both China & Pakistan to them, and tells them to kowtow to Kashmir, and what's even more priceless, not extradite a Jihadi who was behind the 11/26 massacre in 2008. Previously, it was just US exporting Jihadis to Somalia, and now it is US holding Jihadis and not extraditing them to countries that want them, be it Gilani for India or the Uyghar terrorists who got onto the tropical paradise scheme of Obama's. It's a hoot to see clueless Indians get shafted every bit as much as the Europeans. As it is, Indians have a bloated view of their international clout, and deserve to be brought down a peg or more.
So if it weren't for Obama bullying Israel, all these slights of our 'allies' who mock leaders who act in our interests are in fact funny to watch. So I'm not going to get on the bandwagon of those who say we should have voted McCain.
Since he supports Leftists takeover artists in Honduras and other places in Central America, maybe he could even start supporting the Maoists in India. If they manage to take over, they'll do what he wants wrt Pakistan, not b'cos he wants them to do it, but b'cos they would want to.
This article was in News week. Well it seems Indian's are finally waking up and getting to know Obama is a Pakistan Supporter
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235819
Barack Obama is in danger of reversing all the progress his predecessors, including George W. Bush, made in forging closer U.S. ties with India. Preoccupied with China and the Middle East, the Obama administration has allotted little room on its schedule for India, and failed to get much done in the short time it did make. Hosting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the November state visit, the administration managed to produce cordial photo ops, but the agreements reached on education, energy cooperation, and the like dealt with trivia.
Indian diplomats close to Singh say the lackluster results show how far the relationship has fallen since Bill Clinton and the two Bushes transformed a strained Cold War rivalry into a close strategic partnership between the world's largest democracies. Obama's predecessors built a relationship around trade negotiations, joint military exercises, and ad hoc coalitions for humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of the Indonesia tsunami. Despite his reputation for uniquely pushy diplomacy, it was George W. Bush who concluded the landmark deal that recognized India as a legitimate nuclear power and opened the door to the sale of civilian nuclear technology to India. No single American move has done more to demonstrate Washington's respect for New Delhi as a rising and equal power. Now Obama, who came to office promising to respect U.S. allies, is backpedaling on that deal, to the growing chagrin of the Indians.
Obama appears largely oblivious to India's concerns. When the U.S. gathered its allies in the Afghan war at a London summit in January, Indian officials felt they were marginalized because their views were not sought or paid heed to in any fashion. They were even more annoyed by U.S. declarations of a "new dawn" in relations with India's old adversary, Pakistan, and the apparent trust American officials now place in Pakistan's willingness to fight the Taliban, both at home and in Afghanistan. Their feeling is that top Obama advisers, like national-security adviser James Jones and the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, have little experience in South Asia and have displayed remarkable naiveté in public statements.
More than once, Jones has argued that reducing Indo-Pakistani tensions would allow Pakistan to redeploy forces from its Indian border to the fight against the Taliban along the Afghan border. This is utterly fatuous in the view of Indian officials, who believe Pakistan is still dallying with the terrorists who target Indian interests in Kashmir and who orchestrated the devastating 2008 attacks on Mumbai. Despite all this, India has renewed talks with Pakistan and moved military personnel away from the de facto border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan has yet to reciprocate. As a result, some officials in New Delhi are livid about Jones's remarks. Holbrooke triggered a similar reaction in early March: after Afghan Taliban killed a number of Indian workers in Kabul, he blithely stated that the victims were not targeted on the basis of their nationality. Indian officials publicly dismissed Holbrooke's remarks as uninformed. Behind the scenes, they see his comments as part of a larger pattern of Obama administration insensitivity toward India.
India won't wait indefinitely for the White House to put the relationship back on track. Instead, it is cutting deals with nations that respect its significance. Russia, which had let old Soviet ties to India wither, is now dramatically renewing the connection. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently visited India and went home with multiple agreements, including deals on civilian nuclear energy and more than $1.5 billion worth of advanced naval aircraft. Obama's inattention is what makes Russia's advance possible.
It's hard to understand why Washington would continue to neglect such a valuable ally. India is a vast and growing market, a significant military player in South Asia, a growing force in global talks on climate change and nuclear nonproliferation. So instead of ignoring or publicly upbraiding India, Washington needs to find a way to avoid the acutely sensitive issue of Kashmir, while enhancing counterterrorism cooperation and actively seeking India's input into the larger discussion on Afghanistan. Doing so will help secure Washington's relationship with a nation that is too important to keep on the sidelines.
Ganguly, a professor of political science at Indiana University, Bloomington, is currently the Ngee Ann Kongsi chair in international relations at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore.
You think Indians have bloated view of our international clout ?! I think you are wrong ! I think India has much more clout than we have used till now.
I think you have no idea how much power a nation of 1 billion people has that a. Is a secular, modern, constitutional democracy. b. Does not try to intimidate it's neighbors or anyone in the world c. Is committed to universal human rights d. Has institutions to implement c. e. Does not take aid from others but rather gives aid to other countries
I remember how US had fulminated when we carried out nuclear tests (Clinton: We are going to come down on these guys like a ton of bricks; Albright: This is a felony against future). Within months of being quietly told that US can do little against India - even the meek sanctions were hardly working, US was the one that came down a peg or two. Eventually, US accepted India's nuclear arsenal as reality and signed a deal to remove all sanctions and even changed it's own laws in the process.
But yes, we do not have the skill or many times the willingness (being semi dhimmified ourselves) to leverage that strength. A day might come when we are consistently able to do so and then perhaps you might need to revise your opinion of whether we underestimate or overestimate ourselves.
The real problem with us is that we are semi dhimmified having lived under Muslims for centuries. But we are less so than we used to be and should it ever happen that we are completely cured of this illness, India will show real clout to all doubters.
Sanjay
Bangalore, India
Sure India has a bloated view of its international clout. Look @ how it crows about its leadership in the 'Non-Aligned Movement', which was essentially a crypto Islamo-Communist alliance. And the way it thinks it runs things in the neighborhood.
India's market size has little to do w/ it's dhimmified policies on Israel (even the BJP leadership preferred Labor to Likud), it's support of the de-Hinduization of Nepal, its intervention in Sri Lanka starting in the 80s, and ending in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi (incidentally, today's Tamils want to restart that adventure). It has zero clout in South East Asia - Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, et al, and yet, wants to think of itself as a giant. It could have been, had it taken a leadership role in opposing Jihadi activity, whether it's in South Thailand, or even Malaysia. Incidentally, in the 80s, India was all over South Africa over Aparthied. Why doesn't it run a similar untouchability campaign against Malaysia due to the way Hindus are treated there? Or Bangladesh?
India is not less dhimmified now than it was, say 10 or 20 years ago. When there was a train burned in Gujarat, that state saw such an anti-Muslim backlash that Muslims haven't forgotten it to this day. Contrast that w/ 2008, when in response to the Mumbai carnage, the backlash against Muslims was NIL. I'd say that India has adapted a 'chalta hei' attitude towards Jihad, in contrast to the past where you at least had the threat of 'communal riots' to protect against a major terror offensive.
Another thing - India seems a lot more Islamic today than it was 10 or 20 years ago - not only do you have huge Muslim neighborhoods (I'm thinking places like Calcutta & Delhi) but you see black-burqha'ed women everywhere, even in upscale places where one would think would be out of the price range of Mohammedans. This is a lot more depressing than ever.
Looks like you are an Indian and I also think we are arguing unnecessarily because I agree with many of the things you are saying - about NAM, relationship with Israel, non opposition to jihadi activity in India and elsewhere etc. etc.
I have friends who have a similarly bleak view of their own country but otherwise ideologically on the same page as I am.
I will only respond to one thing, therefore - you are comparing non response to terror attack in 2008 to Gujarat riots. First off, I do not believe indulging in rioting makes you less more anti - jihadi. I think you are using wrong criterion to judge India (and perhaps yourself)
Moreover, I had a longer time span in mind. Did you live in the India of 70s and 80s. The very word Hindu inspired contempt and Muslims had started placing the kind of demands that they won't dare to make now. In 92, Babri came crumbling down. Today, some states regularly bring BJP government to power which was unthinkable till 80s.
Let us not waste our energies arguing with those who are essentially on the same ideological page. Let us do what we can - the smallest bit is important, to de - dhimmify India even more.
Sanjay
Error in my earlier post - 2nd last line of 3rd para should read:
.... I do not believe indulging in rioting makes you MORE anti - jihadi.
Sanjay I support your analysis.
India is semi Dimmified and we are rising up.
7th fleet in Indian Ocean in 1971 war who has forgotten.
Who has forgotten the Saber jets given to Pakistan by USA?
Who has forgotten the humiliation of Indira Gandhi By President Nixon. Just like Israeli prime minister Netanyahu faced at the hand of President Barak Hussein Obama
Who has forgotten when India was planning to send Agni Missile to Space? As i remember American Media talked about making crackers. We know where we stand and we are rising up and by strength comes the capability to deal with opponents in Equal terms.
USA finally learnt that India is an important ally and it came from India’s internal strength. There are groups in USA who are doing the utmost to destabilize India and it’s quite well known to Indian community who those groups are and well they have worked for 100's of years but did not succeed.
Indian weakness comes from not being able to decisive action and that comes from a weakness to recognize our enemies.
Gandhi did not tell Indians in his autobiography what is Islam and what is Christianity but talked about peace. When leaders are worried more about how they will be looked upon in future, not on the problems facing the nation, does some time lead to problems in short term. Gandhi after 100 to 200 years will be looked up as a apostle of peace but in short term has put India in a battle against Islam blindfolded
Peace comes from strength and India has a lot to contribute to the world and be a part of human civilization and India will never agree to one way of religion, thinking, and dress.
Uniformity was not for Human beings and no one can force that on India and Indian are learning their own history and making India rise up more and more
In 10 to 15 year more Indian will be against Islam and they will take the actions which have to be taken.
Change is coming and I can clearly see it. Through the work of Jihad watch and other websites we have learnt many things about Islam and I am deeply indebted to Robert Spencer for doing a great Job.
I learnt about Islam due to the efforts of Robert Spencer and had to relearn all of Indian history
Don't knock India, it's an ultimately self defeating process.
They, like Israel have to live cheek by jowl with the most militant of Islamists on this earth, and that is certainly saying something given the expansionist and intolerant nature of that vile creed.
I only hope that they can forge a deeper alliance between the two countries based on that shared bond and also the technological strides which are mutual to those states.
Here in Britain we have many Indian Hindu and Sikh immigrants. Do we hear of them clamouring for rights which are antiethical to the host nation? Can't hear it.
Meanwhile Muslims wherever they go, create unrest, demand outrageous rights, commit crime way out of proportion to their numbers, pimp our white girls, sell drugs, kill, disfigure and abuse their women and generally act as if they own the place.
There is simply no comparison.
India, now that Hussein has gone native is our last bulwark. Historically they know the consequenses of Islamic dominance, something the people in Europe are fast learning as our pussilamimous politicians cave, time after time.
As the clash of civilisations grows ever nearer India will not capitulate.
Thank god that at least one nation is standing against the tide of Islamism.
Obama certainly isn't.
India has suffered of the most violent atrocities committed by Mohammedans. Historically, Hindus have not had any inclination for world domination or imperialistic agenda unlike the Mohammedan Arab imperialist. Slavery and killing of women and children was not part of ancient India's code of warfare. On the other hand Mohammedans continue to slaughter women and children. Mohammedans continue slavery even to this day. India has a rich culture where music, arts, dance has been an integral part of expressing the meanings and traditions of her heritage.
Desidude wrote:
Gravenimage, Afghanistan is a quagmire. It's a Islamic hellhole.
.................
Desidude, I am in no way implying that Afghanistan is "winnable". All I meant is that I would not conflate Karzi's threat to "join the Taliban" with the responses of genuine, solid American allies to Obama's slights, as columnist Swapan Dasgupta seems to do.