I understand why Tony Kevin wrote his column in praise of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Everyone progressive, liberal and leftwards breathed a huge sigh of relief at the end of two long Bush Administrations. As Kevin wrote, he got this award because he's 'not Bush'.
Yet there are many other people in the world who are 'not Bush', and they have not been awarded a peace prize for their efforts. Does Obama have much else in his favour?
At this point, Obama's supporters can't do much but point to his soaring rhetoric, particularly his election campaign based around hope and 'change'. For all his promise of change, after half a year in power, we can see that there have been many areas of continuity with previous American governments.
We can put aside the question of Iraq for now: I have my doubts the occupation is really ending, as I've written before. Obama has already decided on a surge to Afghanistan, and is now considering whether he wants to send even more troops to Afghanistan. Kevin says this is his 'biggest problem' with Obama. This statement seems to attach too-limited import to the escalation of a war: shouldn't this alone rule out Obama winning a Peace Prize?
Yet this is not all that can be said against Obama. Bush was immensely unpopular in the Middle East for his support for the puppet pro-Western tyrannies that litter the region. Obama once challenged Bush for precisely this policy, because he recognised it played a role in the terrorism that is considered such a threat to the West.
Obama boldly declared that if Bush wanted a fight, we should 'fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells'.
That was in 2002. Seven years later, Obama decided that these governments weren't mere 'so-called allies' anymore. He proceeded to give his speech in Cairo, and as Kevin notes, it was a highly symbolic speech.
Before the speech, he refused to criticise Mubarak when asked if he were authoritarian, describing Mubarak as a 'stalwart ally', and a 'force for stability and good in the region'. Egyptian dissident Hossam el-Hamalawy noted in the New York Times that Obama sent a 'clear endorsement' of 'the ailing 81-year-old dictator who has ruled with martial law, secret police and torture chambers', who also receives $1 billion in annual foreign aid from the US.
Obama took the opportunity of his visit to the Middle East to also praise the 'wisdom' and 'graciousness' of the Saudi King.
It is also wrong in suggesting Obama has ended the bombardment and blockading of Gaza. It is true that the bombing ended before his inauguration, though Seymour Hersh revealed in the New Yorker that he supported the flow of weapons to Israel during the slaughter. Regardless, the blockade — which the Goldstone Report suggests may qualify as a crime against humanity — continues, with American support.
Why does the blockade continue? Suppose it was considered reasonable to refuse to negotiate with Hamas. This does not in any way justify denying Gazans food, water and electricity. Yet this is the policy that Israel pursues, with American support, under the pretext of 'boycotting' Hamas.
How can this boycott of the elected representatives of the Palestinians under occupation be reconciled with the claim of the Nobel Committee about Obama's preference for dialogue and negotiations?
It should also not be overlooked that US pressure caused Mahmoud Abbas to attempt to withdraw PA support for the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. Under popular pressure, Abbas reversed himself. This means the US will soon be vetoing resolutions against Israel, just like the Bush administration once did.
What will then happen to his image in the Muslim world? We've already seen how popular he is in Pakistan, where the New York Times reported that the US was so hated because of its drone attacks (which have killed hundreds of civilians) that 'Pakistani authorities have refused to allow American officials' to deliver aid to displaced Pakistanis, because they don't want to be 'associated with their unpopular ally'.
Meanwhile, in what most of the West hasn't noticed, but Latin America certainly has, the US has quietly supported the military coup in Honduras. Oxfam, meanwhile, has complained about the US, along with other rich countries, blocking progress on a fair deal in climate change negotiations.
I share Kevin's hope for change from the Bush era. Sadly, Obama's not the change we're looking for.
Michael Brull is a featured blogger on the Independent Australian Jewish Voices website, and his articles have appeared on newmatilda. He was recently criticised in Parliament by Michael Danby for criticising the Israeli government.