Obama - 1st President to Renege on a US Defense Treaty (Is He Carter II Re "Double-Standards&qu
Below the radar screen of public awareness - with little media coverage considering the near-trillion $ Stimulus bill, the Obama-Health-Care Reform bill, the Cap-and-Trade bill and the uncritical, pro-Obama media, etc.
, the Obama administration has quietly revoked defense treaties with Poland and the Czech Republic - the first time in US history that a president has left an ally "twisting in the wind".
In a December 2009 article in Commentary Magazine entitled "The Missile Defense Betrayal", author Kejda Gjermani describes the Sept.
17, 2009 scrapping of European Missile-Shield Treaties, committed to in 2006 by President George W.
Bush, endorsed by Congress, with even reassurances given by Democrat Ellen Tauscher, then head of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee to the Polish government (that the missile shield would be deployed regardless of the outcome of the 2008 election).
But upon his election, Obama revoked the treaty, the reason clearly for (real-politik) desired goals - seeking diplomatic gain with Russia, to support proposed sanctions - to pressure Iran to reduce its nuclear ambitions.
However, Russia again proved its diplomatic mastery - obtaining its desires, with negligible yield to the interests of its negotiating adversary (especially with a team which seem tyros in the art-form of international diplomacy).
Thus, the US paid a stiff price in political credibility for naught (no Russian concessions): revoking a solemn agreement and commitment by a prior US administration) which placed helpless allies in military jeopardy.
The article pointed out the obvious, "Continuity in foreign policy serves as a stable platform for the undertaking of any long-term initiatives with other countries.
If US presidents start rebooting relations whenever they take office, all international diplomatic frameworks break down.
" "A Catastrophe for Poland" said the Polish Ministry of Defense; also commenting with bitterness was Lech Walesa, former president of Poland, who said, "I can see the kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing.
" Commented the Commentary magazine article, "There is no precedent to such agreements being scrapped; the US has historically respected its treaties", noting that even the SALT II treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter was upheld by Ronald Reagan during his first full term in office, despite his fundamental opposition to it - until the Soviets openly violated the treaty.
Apparently this was not the only instance of chameleon treatment of trusting (small-nation) allies by the new Obama administration - there were also changes in US policy toward Israel and Honduras, plus the lack of even verbal support of the citizens of Iran when they protested against the corrupt election of Achmadinajad.
Regarding Israel, the article said, "Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton have discarded understandings between his predecessor and the Jewish state on fourteen separate occasions - the Obama administration normally being bound by prior agreements.
" Obama and Hillary Clinton (who said,"Let's put ideology aside - that's so 'yesterday'.
") have made it very clear that this administration will not support Israel to the extent of previous administrations.
Regarding Honduras, the article states: "Probably no better example of Obama's approach [to foreign policy], is his treatment of Honduras.
When its President Zelaya was ousted, Obama immediately called the action illegal, insisting that he be returned to power; however, Honduras being a democracy, the action was proper.
The question was thus raised: "Why does Obama negotiate with dictators such as in Iran and North Korea, but not with leaders of a country which is an ally?" Again, when there seemed a legitimate "democratic" uprising of the people in Iran against the repressive rule of Achmadinajad, lack of official US support indicated that "principle" is apparently on the trading block for political pragmatism.
From these diplomatic actions taken during the Obama administration's initial year in office, a new US philosophy seems to be emerging; pressuring allies (with limited political resistance) in the hope of gaining negotiation-benefit with major countries, even if they pose international threats, e.
g.
Iran, North Korea, Palestinian-Gaza and Russia.
As a summary observation, the article concluded, "In justifying the abrogation of the missile-defense treaties so casually, Obama cannot but do his own legacy a disservice.
Obama will pay by seeing future Presidents undo his work [also] on a whim - as a result of his revisionist stunt, neither this country's friends nor its enemies can know what to expect from the United States.
"
, the Obama administration has quietly revoked defense treaties with Poland and the Czech Republic - the first time in US history that a president has left an ally "twisting in the wind".
In a December 2009 article in Commentary Magazine entitled "The Missile Defense Betrayal", author Kejda Gjermani describes the Sept.
17, 2009 scrapping of European Missile-Shield Treaties, committed to in 2006 by President George W.
Bush, endorsed by Congress, with even reassurances given by Democrat Ellen Tauscher, then head of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee to the Polish government (that the missile shield would be deployed regardless of the outcome of the 2008 election).
But upon his election, Obama revoked the treaty, the reason clearly for (real-politik) desired goals - seeking diplomatic gain with Russia, to support proposed sanctions - to pressure Iran to reduce its nuclear ambitions.
However, Russia again proved its diplomatic mastery - obtaining its desires, with negligible yield to the interests of its negotiating adversary (especially with a team which seem tyros in the art-form of international diplomacy).
Thus, the US paid a stiff price in political credibility for naught (no Russian concessions): revoking a solemn agreement and commitment by a prior US administration) which placed helpless allies in military jeopardy.
The article pointed out the obvious, "Continuity in foreign policy serves as a stable platform for the undertaking of any long-term initiatives with other countries.
If US presidents start rebooting relations whenever they take office, all international diplomatic frameworks break down.
" "A Catastrophe for Poland" said the Polish Ministry of Defense; also commenting with bitterness was Lech Walesa, former president of Poland, who said, "I can see the kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing.
" Commented the Commentary magazine article, "There is no precedent to such agreements being scrapped; the US has historically respected its treaties", noting that even the SALT II treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter was upheld by Ronald Reagan during his first full term in office, despite his fundamental opposition to it - until the Soviets openly violated the treaty.
Apparently this was not the only instance of chameleon treatment of trusting (small-nation) allies by the new Obama administration - there were also changes in US policy toward Israel and Honduras, plus the lack of even verbal support of the citizens of Iran when they protested against the corrupt election of Achmadinajad.
Regarding Israel, the article said, "Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton have discarded understandings between his predecessor and the Jewish state on fourteen separate occasions - the Obama administration normally being bound by prior agreements.
" Obama and Hillary Clinton (who said,"Let's put ideology aside - that's so 'yesterday'.
") have made it very clear that this administration will not support Israel to the extent of previous administrations.
Regarding Honduras, the article states: "Probably no better example of Obama's approach [to foreign policy], is his treatment of Honduras.
When its President Zelaya was ousted, Obama immediately called the action illegal, insisting that he be returned to power; however, Honduras being a democracy, the action was proper.
The question was thus raised: "Why does Obama negotiate with dictators such as in Iran and North Korea, but not with leaders of a country which is an ally?" Again, when there seemed a legitimate "democratic" uprising of the people in Iran against the repressive rule of Achmadinajad, lack of official US support indicated that "principle" is apparently on the trading block for political pragmatism.
From these diplomatic actions taken during the Obama administration's initial year in office, a new US philosophy seems to be emerging; pressuring allies (with limited political resistance) in the hope of gaining negotiation-benefit with major countries, even if they pose international threats, e.
g.
Iran, North Korea, Palestinian-Gaza and Russia.
As a summary observation, the article concluded, "In justifying the abrogation of the missile-defense treaties so casually, Obama cannot but do his own legacy a disservice.
Obama will pay by seeing future Presidents undo his work [also] on a whim - as a result of his revisionist stunt, neither this country's friends nor its enemies can know what to expect from the United States.
"