Obama sets stage for 'new world order'

What people in the USA and abroad are saying about President Obama's U.N. speech

The Guardian, (London), in an editorial: "Barack Obama rarely disappoints in his set speeches. ... In his first address to the United Nations (Wednesday), he called on the assembly of world leaders to embrace a new era of engagement, based on mutual interest and respect. He announced that the United States had re-engaged with United Nations, to thunderous applause, and acknowledged that America had been too selective in its promotion of democracy, which cannot be imposed from the outside. This was more ambitious than a collective mea culpa for the sins of his predecessor, President Bush. Obama was attempting to define a new world order, one in which the nation with the strongest army and economy no longer sought to dominate, and in which all nations could play their part."

Rich Lowry, columnist, in the New York Post: "Obama's mistake is in believing 'the interests of nations and peoples are shared.' They aren't. Georgia has an interest in becoming a strong nation capable of defending itself; Russia has an interest in quashing it. China has an interest in dominating all of East Asia; Japan and other neighbors have an interest in containing it. Iran has an interest in gaining a nuclear weapon; Israel — and the United States — has an interest in stopping it. ... The president isn't wrong to talk sweepingly of peace. Ronald Reagan did the same thing, although with a concomitant emphasis on freedom. But Reagan realized the world wouldn't lead itself, at least not where we should want it to go."

Nile Gardiner, blogging on The Daily Telegraph (London): "Overall, this was a staggeringly naive speech by President Obama, with Woodstock-style utterances like 'I will not waver in my pursuit of peace' or 'the interests of peoples and nations are shared.' All that was missing was a conga of hippies dancing through the aisles with a rousing rendition of Kumbaya. ... Human rights issues were strikingly downplayed in Obama's address, which is not surprising since they are rarely on the radar screen of this administration. Nor did the words liberty or freedom feature prominently. This was a speech designed to appease opinion in a world body in which full democracies make up only a minority of its members."

Michael Crowley, on The New Republic's The Plank blog: "Unfortunately, it's not clear that the global community overwhelmingly supports Obama's vision on issues from non-proliferation to climate change to Middle East peace. ... Getting these things done, however, will require more than such pleas. It will take hard work with sleeves rolled up, and probably more than a little unseemly horse-trading behind closed doors. ... Looking back at the last speech George W. Bush delivered to this same body in 2008, one finds many parallels. ... But it is the force of Obama's identity and personal experience which offers some hope that his words might have more resonance. In the months to come, we'll find out."

Toronto Star, in an editorial: "U.S. President Obama cut a bold figure on the world stage ... delivering a forward-looking, energetic message to the United Nations General Assembly. George Bush has left the building. America is engaged again, and claims no monopoly on wisdom. The U.S. is canvassing for partners to tackle issues that bedevil the world. But will the world rise to the challenge? Are U.N. member states prepared to blunt the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and to reduce nuclear arsenals generally? Are they ready to fight terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan, support Mideast peace, curb global warming and reform the world economy?"

(U.N. debut: Progress for the future "cannot solely be America’s endeavor," President Obama says./Stan Honda, AFP/Getty Images.)

Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, September 25, 2009 in Opinionline

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/09/ ... .html#more