Can Obama Seize Time by the Forelock?

Hiroshi Taka

Whoever may come to the White House in January 2009, the new president will have to be engaged in a serious effort to restore peace, justice, and the rule of law in the world order.

For nearly eight years, the image of the United States has been severely damaged, most of all from the attack on Iraq in March 2003. The massive demonstration in London in late September 2002, turned out to be an important event, determining the subsequent course of actions by millions of people worldwide. The open session of the U.N. Security Council in October the same year followed it, with almost all speakers calling for the peaceful resolution of the problem through U.N./International Atomic Energy Agency inspection. The Bush administration failed to understand that the major direction of the twenty-first century lay in the effort for peaceful resolution of international problems.

The problems of Afghanistan and Iraq are different in nature. Yet what concerned people around the world immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11 was a hasty action of vengeance by U.S. military forces. The criminal groups, like Al Qaeda, do not really have broad support in any given society where they operate. What was required of the U.S. was to respond prudently, in accord with international law, in a way that would bring wide public support around it. This is not an afterthought. It was actually ardently called for in the wake of the terrorist attacks and thereafter by sensible public opinion, both in the U.S. and internationally, including many families of the victims of September 11.

With overconfidence in the ability of its military might to shape a new order, the Bush administration has changed the symbol of the U.S. from the Statue of Liberty to Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, as Brezinski says.

Regarding the “crossroads” of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, which the U.S. regarded as the “gravest danger,” there has always been another way to address it, other than narrowing it down to the counterproliferation by force and preemptive attacks. Even at the moment when George W. Bush or John Bolton were sounding the alarm that WMD were spreading everywhere, almost all “non-nuclear weapons states” of the then 187 NPT member states, except the Nuclear Five, were actually placing themselves under the treaty obligation not to develop nor acquire nuclear weapons. If the U.S. leaders really intended to address what they termed “the gravest danger,” the situation was sufficient for them to move to totally ban nuclear weapons. But, by opting to respond by force, the Bush Administration turned this best opportunity into the worst quagmire.

Identifying the last eight years as the “dark age” may be one way of looking at things. During the same time, however, we also witnessed hundreds of thousands of citizens across the world taking to the streets to prevent the outbreak of war. Pressed by their actions, many governments joined forces in calling for a settlement by peaceful means. More conspicuous was that during the same period an increasing number of governments affirmed that the international community should focus on the basic problem underlying the danger of nuclear proliferation, rather than reducing the problem to “nonproliferation” alone.

In this development, we must note that the peace opinion of the United States has always asserted itself, demonstrating that U.S. citizens at the grassroots are with the rest of the world in pursuit of peace with justice. The “change” upheld by Barack Obama drew our attention, because many people in the world have held their hope in the undercurrent for peace in the U.S. during the eight years.

How this undercurrent for peace will develop in the realpolitik world is still unknown. Barack Obama has rallied support around him by emphasizing the calamities and plight hastened by the Bush administration. When Obama refers to “change,” people hope it will mean peace, democracy, social welfare, and other more considerate policies for working citizens. But how will he translate his criticism and his vision for “change” into actual policies and actions?

Like tens of millions of U.S. citizens, many in Japan are hoping that Obama will part from the mistaken path, end “unilateralism,” and that he will square up such outstanding issues facing humanity as the pursuit of peace and resolution of international conflicts by peaceful means, a total ban on nuclear weapons as an urgent issue, recognition of values in different civilizations, and the internationally coordinated effort to protect global environment. This is where the leadership of the U.S. is truly tested.

As the first African American candidate of a major political party and as a champion of equality American society, Barack Obama should have a significant impact on American foreign relations. Japan-U.S. relations have suffered from Bush's confrontational approach for eight years. Two Japanese prime ministers, Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda, gave up their posts one after another in two years. This was apparently because they were seen as accommodating American efforts to secure a greater role for Japan in American preemptive wars. In moving beyond these eight years, perhaps the U.S. might find a new strategy. One possibility is encouraging Japan to make use of Article Nine of its Constitution, in which both war and the potential of war are renounced as means to resolve international conflicts, in its relationship with the other Asian countries. Another possibility is to encourage Japan to uphold its "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" of not possessing, not manufacturing, and not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan. This will certainly serve to enhance security, which the U.S. and the rest of the world badly need.

In retrospect, Democratic U.S. presidents, in pursuit of a more stable political base, approached and even went beyond the Republicans, particularly on the issues of peace and security. But this did not really help stabilize their positions. The negative legacy of the Bush administration must be turned to a positive lesson. There are both danger and opportunity before the people. Obama should seize time by the forelock.

A major leader of the Japanese peace movement, Hiroshi Taka is the Secretary General of Gensuikyo (Japan Council against A & H Bombs).