Memoire Online - Obama and The U.S.A self image

Utopian world where every body dreams to live, we have always heard about the American dream which is not only American, it is every body's dream. And what made it so is the American pledge for morality, a pledge that makes America a force for good in the world, in fact, a supreme force which tries to implement its values and principales world wide, taking advantage of the fact that people are influenced by it in one hand and its military and economic supremacy on the other hand. These are the tools that America has been using to achieve its ends and this is what determined its relations with the wider world right after the Cold War especially that the collapse of the Soviets enabled the United States to emerge as a supreme power and take the initiative to lead the world

The U.S.A embraced values of democracy, liberty and human rights, these values became its universal slogan and it strived tooth and nail to spread it, using whatever it takes to do so.

What pushed me to talk about U.S.A self-image is the fact that the legacy that the U.S.A policy makers spent years to build is now fading away, unless someone, a super hero who has got enough power, influence, audacity and courage intervene in the right moment to save this moral authority which distinguishes America from the rest of the world. All what I'am going to ask you to do is to take the remote control, turn on the T.V and take a sit. Now, go through the News Chanels and tell me what do you see, what do you notice, what is the common things that that all T.V screens are broadcasting? The answer is so obvious that it does not need all this time to muse about!! It's war! War every where, dead people, casualties, bombing, massive destruction, deep feelings of antipathy among people world wide, angry demonstrations and protests...

But the awkward part in all this is that- what used to be the perfect, most lovable nation- the nation who is -according to Robet Kagan: «Ready to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by forces of oppression, to pay any price, bear any burden to defend freedom, to seek democratic enlargement in the world» on behalf of democracy and moral authority- is blamed for all this damage; it is the United States of America!! Yes I know, it seems to be hard to believe but this is the shocking truth, the U.S.A is blamed for all this chaos.

This how the U.S.A is loosing its reputation; what used to be a peace-loving nation with an image that took centuries to be chaped is sinking. This very fact was strenghthened especially right after the 9/11 terror. The U.S moral authority is turning into a moral arrogance shown mostly in terms of foreign affairs. In an attempt to revenge, America embarked on a perilous course of power projection and intimidation, treating both allies and enemies with the same way, thus, mutilating its bright image.

What hooked me in this subject is how a policy making can determin a nation's whole status. No one can deny the fact that U.S.A self-image has deteriorated, this was not my focus. I tried to put the focus on the reasons behind this deterioration, examine them and try to grasp the lessons behind all the mistakes done by the previous American Adminstration.

Yet, one can still be hopeful and optimistic for the American future. With the election of Barack Obama, the first black to be elected for the American presidency, there may be a change. The first thing to suppose is that Barack Obama is fully aware of the deterioration of U.S self-image. If he is really so, what are the measures that he is going to take to beautify this mutilated image? The only thing to be said here is that the whole world has got his eyes on Barack Obama, waiting for the big change to happen, waiting for the U.S self-image to be restored.

I-The U.S.A Self-Image:

If one speaks about U.S.A self image, he is not speaking about a newly made-image. He is speaking about an image that started to be shaped right from the beginning of the early settlement of the America -and has its influence on Americans till now.

It was the Pilgrim Fathers who were the first to give U.S.A self-image a general frame work that all Americans still believe. In order to escape religious persecution in England, the Pilgrim Fathers crossed the Atlantic in the board of the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. They wanted to build a city-upon a hill, an ideal community.

Since that time, Americans perceived their nation as a great experiment, a worthy example for other nations to follow. The American Revolution brought about the drafting of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson which was adopted by the congress on july4, 1776. The declaration presented a public defense of the American Revolution. It explained the philosophy behind the revolution:

The Declaration presented a public defense of the American Revolution, including a lengthy list of grievances against the British King, George III. Most importantly, it explained the philosophy behind the revolution- that men have a natural right to «Life, Liberty and th puirsuit of happiness.» (Jonathan Rose).

The notions that the Puritans and the Declaration of Independence brought with them were further implemented in the American society by-what the^1(*) lawyer and the journalist John. O'Sullivan coined in an article entitled «Annexation»- the notion of Manifest Destiney; explaining the reasons behind the policy of over spread that the U.S.A followed during the 19th century. In fact, the Manifest Destiny is a continuation of the old Puritans' city-upon a hill. It saw the American nation as the nation chosen by God; a nation whose special destiny is to spread or «to manifest» ideals of liberty and freedom worldwide.

These different notions were pulled together to build an overall view about the U.S foreign policy. In fact, President Monroe in a state of the Union message presented later to congress in 1823 enunciated the principales of American foreign policy, which later in 1852 became known as the Monroe Doctrine and by the end of the 19th century became crucial to the American policy.

...the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principale in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjets for future colonization by any European powers...

Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in the favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the Europeans powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.... (Monroe)

This what made the American proud of the values they were embracing, along with their historical heritage. This shapes the American self-image, an image that they wanted to cherish and made sure that others perceive it like the way they do.

2- How the U.S.A is Perceived Today?

Being conscious about their Puritan ancestors who had tight relation with God, Americans today see themselves as the most religious people in the world. For instance, according to ^2(*)Pew center survey, 87% of the citizens believed in the presence of God and 81% of them consider praying God as a crucial part of their lives. Americans also perceive themselves as the most patriotic citizens. In fact, American patriotism seems to be higher than in any other country. This phenomenon is embodied through hostility to foreigners. This is how 91% of the citizens- ^3(*)according to the source mentioned above-see themselves: ethnocentric patriots. This patriotism, along with this religious morality made the Americans see their country totally different from other countries. This is American exceptionalism; this makes the U.S.A a city-upon a hill, a divine city whose destiny is to spread ideals of equality, freedom, liberty and democracy and to make sure that the pursuit of happiness is fulfilled. In few words, this is what makes America a Utopian world, a perfect example for other nations to imitate.

Many countries were inspired by the U.S.A like Latin America, Europe, and Southeast Asia...for them; the U.S.A is the ^4(*)«Big Brother» who is willing to do anything in order to secure their rights, even if it takes to abolish a whole system of destructive autocratic governments just for the sake of democracy. The U.S.A was very aware of the cruciality of its role within the world, that is why; it wanted to build a military supremacy in order to be perceived as a superpower by ^5(*)spreading the numbers of overseas bases almost all over the world; Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in central Asia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary, Poland and Romania in Europe, Djibouti, Oman and Qatar. The priority that the U.S.A gives to military forces is shown through the magnificent rise in the military spending, a spending that has surpassed $500billion per year.

II- Causes behind the Deterioration of the U.S.A Self-Image:

Americans are very proud of their nation and the qualities they are embracing. Their patriotism, along with their religious morality is the qualities that distinguish them from other people and make the U.S.A different, exceptional from other nations. This exceptionalism is expressed by Walter A.Mcdougal as follows:

From the time when in 1775 Thomas Paine spoke for the revolutionary ethos proclaiming that«we have it in our power to begin the world all over again»the phenomenon of America's deeply«exceptionalism» has been a powerful factor in world politics, alternately inspiring and infuriating America's friends and allies. From the time America emerged as a true great power at the end of the nineteenth century, with the likes of Henry Cabot Lodge qnd Admiral A.T. Mahan advocating a«large» foreign policy, American leaders have been careful to emphasize the idealist motivations that underly their international interventions.(Walter A. Macdougall)

In other words, this is what makes the U.S.A a city upon a hill, a divine city whose destiny is to spread the values reinforced by the Declaration of Independence: values of freedom, liberty and equality. It is the U.S.A duty to stand by the nations lagging behind and make sure that they have free access to these values through positive intervention.

The Americans' increasingly awareness of their identity, their exceptionalism and the role of their nation within the world gave birth to the notion of « Americanism» expressed by David Hill in his book Americanism, What Is IT as follow:

Americanism is what is most original and distinctive in American political conceptions and most characteristic of the American way of life. Americanism is a positive, constructive force and it starts with the idea that the human individual has an intrinsic value... (Hill, p viii)

. Franklin Roosevelt also maintained the same idea about Americanism by stating that:

Americanism signifies the virtues of courage, justice, sincerity and strength- the virtues that made America. (Marie-France Toinet, p219)

Americanism in a few words expresses the notions of American nationalism. It represents both American self-image and the way it is perceived by others. But unfortunately, this strong belief in Americanism turned into a dogmatic attitude. American today are trying to keep their distance from other nations by drawing a clear dividing line between themselves-as the nation uniquely blessed by God- and foreigners. This idea was expressed in an article taken from the Japanese Journal of American studies written by Seong-Ho Lim, a professor in Kyung Hee University, Seoul South Korea as follow: «the us versus them attitude.» This attitude was strengthened by the 9/11 terror which makes the Americans think that they are living in a perpetual danger, a danger whose source is this «them» which stands for the other who is stranger, and the only way to minimize his threat is by avoiding him or «them». Another aspect of this dogmatism is the U.S.A's strong belief in her divine mission aiming at spreading morality, freedom and democracy by trying to play the role of ^6(*)«The Big Brother» who makes sure that everything is okay. Due to this dogmatic attitude, the U.S.A, is giving herself the right to intervene in the issues of other nations and impose "the made in America" values and principales through a hawkish policy preferring the use of military power rather than peaceful intervention. So, the U.S.A launched what Robert Kagan described in his article «End of Dreams, Return to History» as «blind crusade» on behalf of democracy:

In such an international envioronment the United State should continue, as it has in the past, to prefer democracy over autocracy and to use its influence to promote the former when opportunities arise. This more than just a matter of moral preference, although Americans often cannot avoid expressing and working on that preference...The United States should discourage moves toward autocracy in democratic nations, both by punishing steps that undo democratic institution and by providing support to those institutions and individuals who favor democratic principles. It should isolate autocratic governments when possible while encouraging internal pressure for democratic reform... the United States should express support for democracy in word and deed without expecting immediate success. It should support the development of liberal institutions and practices... the United States need not engage in a blind crusade on behalf of democracy everywhere at all times, nor need it seek a violent confrontation with the autocratic powers... (Robert Kagan)

These dogmatic attitudes shared by all Americans whether politicians or ordinary people gave birth to an atmosphere of animosity towards the U.S.A. An atmosphere that emptied the term «Big Brother» from all its positive implications: peace, fraternity and cooperative relations between America and other nations.

No one has the audacity to think that the U.S.A, the supreme military power with its anti ballistic missiles known by their accuracy, weapons of mass destruction, high technology, and intelligence agencies could one day be a target of military operations like those of 9/11.

Sebtember the 11th, 2001 was an unforgettable day in the history of humanity, let alone America, a day in which people all over the globe stood mesmerized in front of unbelievable images, images closer to an action movie than to reality. No one could believe at that time that the Twin Towers of Wall Street Center at New York-one of the most vital accommodations in the U.S.A core- were being totally destroyed by an air crash, causing the death of almost^7(*) 3OOO people.

This event deeply affected American people. It changed the way they perceive themselves, their nation and the global role of their nation. It also reintroduced the term «terrorism» to the political scene. Who is responsible for these attacks? Is he an individual, an organization or a whole nation? Is he really more powerful and more intelligent than the U.S.A and its intelligence agencies to organize such devastating events without being even identified? All these issues were left to the Americans to muse about, raising a huge question mark and revealing that the U.S.A remains vulnerable despite its military supremacy.

This very fact made the Americans lose their sense of security. The 9/11 trauma injected them with a kind of phobia about the others; they kept their distance from foreigners and started to perceive them like enemies. ^8(*)War became their natural states: who may know? What if they were attacked again on their own territory? No one can guarantee that the event of 9/11 will not happen again! All these public attitudes gave the green light to George.W. Bush and his administration to launch what Bush calls «war on terrorism», with Osama Bin Laden being the n°1 accused of this entire. Bush decided to fight all terrorists, dictators and autocratic leaders around the world and erode them. He was determined to restore the Americans' sense of security and severely punish those responsible for those attacks and the ones financing them. That is why he put all the focus on force and military power. In fact, an excessive use of military power.

Before examining its contribution to the collapse of U.S.A, let's first of all define what neo-conservatism is.^9(*) In fact, the history of neo-conservatism goes back to more than 30 years. One may classify it among movements but this classification overestimates the nature of neo-conservatism. That is why Irving Kristol describes it as a sort of «persuasion» rather than a movement.

Let us now proceed to meet the neo-conservatives. Their movement is not a card -carrying organization. They do not hold meetings or conventions. There is no absolute divinding line between who is and who is not a neo-conservative. Indeed the word «movement» may exaggerate the degree of intellectual cohesion. Irving Cristol, who accepts the title of neo-conservatism «godfather», prefers to describe neo-conservatism as a «persuasion». (Irving Kristol, p23-25)

^10(*)Neo-conservatism started in the form of writings and articles. These are ^11(*)the three major principales which represent the core of neo-conservatism:

1/-a belief found even in religion dealing with the natural state of man to choose between good and evil and this became the natural state not only for man but also for states where the good ones have to fight the bad ones.

2/-the use of military power is what determines relationships between the states.

3/-The Middle East and the Islamic World in general are perceived as the main source of danger for the American interests.

Neo-conservatism deeply believes in these three principales and puts them in practice in the international scene.^12(*) The U.S.A started to judge states according to moral criteria in terms of good and evil and thus, the role of the U.S.A is to fight the evil nations.

^13(*)Neo-conservatism also called for American military supremacy and a unilateral policy in which the U.S.A will keep its distance from international treaties and diplomatic agencies which thought to restrict the U.S power. A close scrutiny shows that all these ideas and beliefs played a key role in establishing the main features which characterized American politics especially as far as its international affairs are concerned, and^14(*) what made it so is that all these views have been adopted by members who held or still hold positions in the American government like I. Lewis Libby: a special advisor to the president, vice president Dick Cheney, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld ... This is what shaped the basis of American foreign policy since at least the McKinley's presidency; the American tendency to show off its military strength and its supremacy: notions that stem from neo-conservative ideals. A call for morality in which the U.S.A sees itself as the good nation whose duty is to restore peace and punish all the evil countries. This is what neo conservatism calls^15(*) judging the American relations with other nations in black and white. Both Kaplan and Bill Kristol- strong supporters for neo-conservatism- praised the role of America.

America must not only be the world's policeman or its sheriff, it must be its bacon and guide. (Kaplan and Kristoll, PI2I)

And in order for its mission to be successful, the U.S.A today-just like the neo-conservative vision-is working alone without caring about the assent of its allies or the diplomatic agencies which will prevent it from achieving its aims related to spreading freedom and democracy.

As mentioned above, the U.S.A always considered the Islamic world the main source of terror, in other words, the bad ones who needed to be severely punished. This idea was deeply rooted especially after the attacks of 9/11 which were related to the organization of Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden. These attacks provided the ground for the neo-conservatism to deeply implement its views and give the U.S.A the right to further spread its moral arrogance, increase its use of military power and launch more wars on behalf of democracy. In order to convince people with the legitimacy of this change, the neo-conservatives spread what Halper and Clarke called neurosis

They [the neo-conservatives] manipulated the institutional power of their own positions to draw the American public into what can be best described as a synthetic ^16(*)neurosis that supported their template for regime change in the Middle East. With the Americans so actually sensitive to any threat to national security after 9/11, the agenda of the possible was thus transformed. (Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, p 203).

But unfortunately, the neo-conservative principles that the U.S.A is embracing played a crucial role in mutilating U.S.A's self-image. It gave birth to an international scene characterized by disequilibrium; an international scene in which the U.S.A is the core body and the role of the other states is of less importance: ^17(*)this represents simply the unipolar world. This policy of unilateralism and unipolarity costs the U.S.A dear by making it loose all its friends and allies. Due to the views that America is holding about the Islamic world, it is facing a problem of legitimacy there.^18(*) People in this part of the world share a strong feeling of antipathy towards the U.S.A as a result of the stereotypes that America is trying to root in the minds of people by portraying them as terrorists and extremists.

In fact, not only were the allies and the Islamic World opposed to the neo-conservatives'principales but ironically the Americans themselves, they refused their nation's obsession with military build-up and they began to question the genuineness of the American global mission: the sacred mission of democracy, freedom and human rights turned into hawkish policies of extreme force and excessive use of power.

4- The American Administration:

American leaders always believe in the divine role of the U.S.A to spread ideals of democracy and freedom in the world and fight terrorism. That is why they put the focus on military power on the one hand and protect the American interests by giving America the right to intervene in the international affairs on the other hand. These are the two features which characterize the American administration right from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency till George W Bush's.

In fact, ^19(*)it was Woodrow Wilson who put the framework of this administration. He introduced a program which gave the U.S.A the right to intervene in the affairs of the foreign states worldwide in the interests of democracy and peace. A close scrutiny shows that there is a big similarity between these Wilsonian principales and Bush administration. This tendency towards Wilsonianism is embedded in Bush doctrine. A doctrine concerned mostly with the international affairs. The green light that Wilson gave to the U.S.A to intervene in the international affairs through the use of military power is represented through the preemptive military action for the sake of peace; this becomes the slogan the American administration raises to justify its policy abroad. But unfortunately, this slogan that Bush and his administration strongly believe in damaged the American self-image abroad, it is true that this principales comes out of noble causes but the U.S.A dogmatic attitudes about the divinity of its role on one hand and the after math of the 9/11 make Bush turn his fight against terrorism into a policy of excessive use of military power and into a violation of states' souvreignity on the behalf of democracy and freedom. This policy can be seen through many examples like the American intervention in Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq. Robert Kagan further explained this idea. He says:

«Americans have always had this unique spur to global involvement, an ideological righteousness that inclines them to meddle in the affairs of others, to seek change, to insist on imposing their avowed universal principals."(Robert Kagan)

Among the reasons concerning George.W. Bush's policies in addition to those mentioned above which contributed in spreading universal feeling of hostility and anger towards the U.S.A is unilateralism;

A willingness to act without the sanction of international bodies such as the United Nation Security Council or the unanimous approval of allies. (Robert Kagan)

This tendency towards unilateralism is related to the American foreign policy and^20(*) started to be shaped after the Soviet collapse. It is one of the principals that the neo-conservatism strongly believed in and that the American leaders are trying to embody through establishing certain criteria to determine their relation with their allies, the diplomatic agencies and international treaties. This attitude stems from a strong belief that all these different international bodies will restrict the power of the U.S.A and hinder her from fulfilling its divine mission. This tendency towards unilateralism is manifested through the U.S's willingness to act in the international scene without taking any consideration to the interests of other countries as far as making foreign policies decisions is concerned. This very fact is crystallized through the attitudes that the Iraqi war. The U.S.A waged this war against Iraq without getting the approval of the U.N. it is also shown through the attitudes that America takes towards the international treaties; in fact, the U.S.A is notorious by its disrespect and indifference towards these treaties which put the international scene on order.

The American policy based mainly on unilateralism and preemptive action- what Perle defines as:

As the emerging option of choice, it advanced a concept-the right of preemption- designed to transform, and indeed deconstruct, those organizations, states, and regions deemed a threat... (Perle)

The issue of international security has a lot to do with the problem of legitimacy that the U.S.A is facing today. It alleviated the strong feelings of hatred, antipathy and distrust towards the U.S.A which is no longer seen as a benevolent sponsor but rather as a threat for the other nations'interests.

	Mostly Bush (%)	America in general (%)	Both (%)	Don't know (%)	N
France	74	21	4		301
Germany	74	22	3	1	266
Indonesia	69	20	7	4	798
Italy	67	24	9		190
Morocco	66	14	18	2	660
Pakistan	62	31	2	5	808
Canada	60	32	6	2	175
Nigeria	60	22	18		366
Great Britain	59	31	8	3	153
Brazil	56	36	6	2	608
Australia	53	40	6	1	190
Turkey	52	33	12	3	829
Lebanon	51	32	16	1	710
Spain	50	37	12	2	281
Kuwait	44	42	8	6	159
Russia	43	32	15	10	281
Jordan	42	28	30		988
Israel	37	42	15	6	304
Palestine Auth.	31	32	36	1	784
South Korea	20	72	7	1	262

In this table, one can note the opinions of those who have unfavorable attitudes to the U .S. The majority is opposed to Bush's policies; they think thqt that the latter is a bigger problem more than America in general.

The American administration tried to convince the international scene by ^21(*)presenting strong evidences about the Iraqi possession of nuclear weapons and ^22(*)its relationship with al-Qaeda. This scenario was presented and deeply rooted in the public opinion.Halper and Kagan said:

Thus, the process of establishing a logic in people's minds that led from the terrorist attacks through the war on terror to distination Saddam Hussein was relentless. Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were morphed into the same enemy. But the scare mongering was highly selective in terms of the wider strategic environmemt. (Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, 210).

^23(*)This was the discourse that the Secretary of State Collin Powell presented to the U.N Security Council in February 2003. He tried to gather facts that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He built the case on the fact ^24(*)that Iraq was buying the uranium from Niger.

What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior... the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction. (Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, 211)

Yet, he left a lot of unanswerable questions justifying this with the fact that he should protect the security of his sources on one hand, and the refusal of the Iraqi administration to cope with the commissions and the inspectors sent to look for undiscovered weapons of mass destruction by hiding evidence:

I can't tell you every thing. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years , is deeply troubling. (Halper and Kagan, 211).

But both the U.N Security and the CIA were not convinced with the case that Colin Powell had ^25(*)«presented to the world» since it was full with gaps.^26(*) The CIA started to investigate in this issue by sending a former state department official Joseph Wilson who refuted all these allegations. Despite this, the American administration held tightly on what turned to be false assumptions and determined to wage the war against Iraq. Not only were the nuclear claiming false ones-as Scowcroft argued that:

Saddam Hussein was Unlikely to risk investements in weapons of muss destruction, nor tempt an attack on Iraq, by handing such weapons to terrorists who could use them for their purposes, leaving Baghdad as the return address. Besides, it was clear to Saddam Hussein, as a power-hungry survivor, that threatening to use weapons even for blackmail-much less actually using them-would open him and his regime to an immediate and devastating response from an unflinching United States. (Scowcroft).

But also all the other assumptions that the US administration had created-influenced by the neo-conservatives. In fact, there are no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. ^27(*)It was true that al- Zarqawi spent two months in Baghdad for medical reasons but this didn't mean that there was a cooperative relationship between Bin -Laden and Saddam Hussein especially that the latter was totally opposed to Bin -Laden's ideology and perceived him as an enemy. Brent Scowcroft, the National Security advisor to Gerald Ford and George. W.Bush commented on this by stating that «there was scant evidence to tie Saddam Husein to Al-Qaeda and even to 9/11.»

And even if the claim that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons was true, Saddam Hussein was not that idiot to wage a nuclear war against the U.S.A knowing in advance that he was going to be the biggest loser. By this token and just like what Maureen Dowd said:

it was no wonder Americans were confused; the United States was about to go to war against a country that did not attack it on Septamber II, as did al-Qaeda; that did not intercept its plannes, as did North Korea, that did not finance al-Qaeda, as did Saudi Arabia; that was not home to Osama Bin Laden's lieutenants, as was Pakistan; and was not a host body for terrorists, as were Iran and Syria. (Maureen Dowd, 385)

This is how the evidences upon which the American administration built the case against Iraq turned out to be false ones. There was no relation between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein due to what a Defense Intelligence staff described as «reciprocal mistrust and incompatible ideologies». There was also no concrete evidence about the presence of nuclear weapons on Iraq. The international bodies represented by the U.N Security Council and the CIA were opposed to these allegations and recommended that the US Administration let go of its charges toward Iraq but the former insisted on what it thought to be facts and tried to convey them through the speeches that Bush delivered:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons... the Iraqi regime is building facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons... the regime is seeking a nuclear bomb. (Bush)

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. (Bush)

We have experienced the threat of Septamber II, and America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. (Remarks by the President on Iraq)

We will lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. (Remarks by the President at Louisville)

This strong determination to wage the war despite the weakness of the evidence presented and despite the strong opposition of the international bodies asserted its unilateralism since it was a self made decision.

It was the US administration who made the call for the Iraqi War as a response to the 9/11, it was also the US administration that created the "new reality"through what Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke called «the discursive construction of reality».

The notion of discursive construction of reality asserts that one of the principal functions of language is to provide an intelligeable conceptual framework. Social reality and the relations, entities and beliefs within it are regarded not as determined and fixed but as created in and through language. Our perceptions of something, the meaning or significance it holds in our lives and the value that we ascribe to it, is discursively constructed- that is defined by words- and changes with the way that we speak about it. How reality is discussed and represented greatly influences our responses and judgements. (Stephan Halpher and Jonathan Clarke, 206-207).

And justified its call for the war by linking Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden and it was also the Americans who executed this plan without the international assent, supported only by the British government which stood by the Americans right from the beginning by helping them to gather information about the Iraqi possession of nuclear weapons.

The truth is that the Iraqi war was or a revenge for the 9/11, nor a fight against terrorism and the possession of nuclear weapons, according to Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol:

...the Iraq War was not about terrorism; it was about the pivotal relationship between Sadda Hussein and the assertion of American power. Hussein provided, in effect, the opportunity to clarify America's global objectives and moral obligations. His continued survival in power was a metaphor for all that had gone wrong wih American foreign policy sice the Soviet collapse in the sense that the first Bush administration's Realpolitik and Clinton's wishful liberalism had left the Iraqi dictator in power. Iraq was now the arena in which to demonstrate the crucial tenets of neo-conservative doctrine: military preemption, regime change, the merits of exporting democracy, and a vision of American power that's fully engaged and never apologetic. (Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol).

But unfortunately, the international response toward this war was outrageous. No one was totally convinced by the legitimacy of this war due ^28(*)to the weakness of evidences; that is why the majority of people worldwide were opposed to it. War in fact intensified feelings of hatred and antipathy toward the U.S.A not only among Muslim people, but also among Europeans. Both sides of the world believed that the US-led war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein made the world a more dangerous place.

This table shows that the support that people held toward the U.S.A has falling down as people are no longer convinced with the legitimacy of the American-led war on terror incarnated in the Iraq war.

By this token, Osama Bin Laden was no longer seen in the majority of the Islamic countries as the terrorist but rather as^29(*) "the good guy" and trust-worthy. this was what the 2006 Pew Poll indicated by stating that:" 38% of Pakistanis and 24% of Jordanians have a lot or some confidence in Bin Laden to do the right thing" and solve the world problems, unlike the USA which takes decisions unilaterally and without taking into consideration the interests of the other countries as far as making foreign policy decisions is concerned. So, these feelings of animosity were not targeting the American public but rather the American policy makers, and more specifically the American president George. W. Bush and his administration. On the other hand, both the Muslim countries and the European ones saw-according to a 2004Pew poll- that the real reason behind the war was not to reduce the threat of terrorism-like what the American administration claimed- ^30(*)but to facilitate the US control of Middle East oil and domination of the world.

This was how the Iraqi War was the golden opportunity that all the opposed to Bush and his policies characterized by unilateralism and-what Muslims see as- unlimited support to Israel were waiting for to exhibit these overwhelming feelings of anger, antipathy and mistrust and metamorphose them into violent demonstrations and protests almost everywhere around the globe, blaming Bush and his administration for all the wars and all the violence and comparing him to the vice Israeli prime minister Sharon who was classified among war criminals because he killed hundreds of innocent Palestinian people in one of the notorious massacre "Sabra and Shatila" and other attacks, thus , calling for the persecution of Bush.

This was how the Iraqi War-unlike what the US policy makers thought- put an end to the glories and pride that America was living in and gave birth to a new international context in which the U.S.A asserted its self-image as the unilateral nation whose ultimate aim is to protect its own interests without taking into account the interests of the other nations and without forgetting its role in widening the gap between the Islamic World and the rest of the world by mutilating the image of the Muslim people through lies and rumors.

It has been virtually impossible to retrench and regain our balance in the hearts and minds of Arabs as debacle after debacle has steadily chipped away at our standing. Poll after poll confirms that from Morocco to Saudi Arabia, America's reputation has fallen through the basement floor. Of course, these failures will have to be reversed before anything in the way of success can be measured. (Marc Ginsberg).

III-Aspects of the Deterioration of America self-image:

Anti-Americanism is a term which appeared in the McCarthy era referring to the non Americans' rejection of the American culture. Paul Hollander defines it as:

a hostile predisposition" by stating that:"the term has been employed to denote a particular mindset, an attitude of distaste, aversion or intense hostility the roots of which may be found in matters unrelated to the actual qualities or attributes of American society or the foreign policy of the United States...Anti-Americanism refers to a negative predisposition, a type of bias which is to varying degrees unfounded...I regard it as an attitude similar to its far more thoroughly explored counterparts, hostile predisposition such as racism, sexism, anti-Semitism. (Paul Hollander, pviii)

As a matter of fact, Anti-Americanism is a ^31(*)global phenomenon which includes not only the Islamic World but also the European allies since favorable attitudes towards the U.S.A declined from 78% in 2000 to 37% currently in Germany, similar in France and even worse in Spain where only 23% still hold positive views toward America according to 1999/2000 survey trends provided by the Office of Research, US Department of State. Although Anti-Americanism is a universal phenomenon, ^32(*)it is clearly strongest among Muslim people who perceive the U.S.A as a potential military threat. Besides, Anti-Americanism becomes an unchangeable idea based mainly on seeing America as the main source of danger on the world peace, especially through the US presence on Iraq which endangers not only the world peace but also the regional security. And today, Anti-Americanism is getting deeper and deeper into people's minds. It is established very firmly now by holding negative attitudes not only toward the U.S.A as a nation but also toward the American people in general who are seen today-according to 2006 Pew Poll as violent, rude, and immoral people. This anti-Americanism which has been described by Moises Naim in his book as "an allergic reaction to anything American" is manifested through many aspects. As far as the European world is concerned, the European nations today are rejecting the fact that they are seen as subordinate to the U.S.A and they are seeking more freedom. they wanted to set their nations free from the influence that the made-in America concepts conquering the world today like ^33(*)Coca-Cola, Nike shoes and McDonald; the universal emblem of fast food... and so many other concepts which prevailed the world so rapidly due to globalization and the techno-communicational progress which is increasing. This Europeans rejection is shown through decline in favorable views that Europeans used to hold about America. A poll made in March 2003 by the Pew Research Center showed that favorable views toward the U.S.A in Great Britain declined from 83% in 1999-2000 to 48% in 2003 mainly because the Iraqi War. America used to be a destination for tourists who were fascinated by its image and were longing to discover what makes this nation exceptional from the rest of the world. But now, the U.S.A no longer has this shiny image and tourists no longer want to travel there simply because-according to what Erick Krish said -"they don't like what Bush is doing". Another aspect of this anti-Americanism is^34(*) boycotting the American goods like Coca Cola, Mars bars, Gap Jeans and even the American films. This phenomenon is found not only in the European countries but also in the Arab world who justifies this boycott by the refusal of the American unlimited support for Israel. ^35(*)Arabs started to substitute the made-in America products with other products like for example Mecca Cola; a new soft drink launched in France in November 2002, with more than million bottles in the Middle East and Africa. Muslims also boycotted the American business found in Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan whenever violence erupts between Palestinians and Israelis.

And today, anti-Americanism in the Muslim world takes a more violent form. In fact, these strong feelings of hatred and rejection are manifested ^36(*)through suicidal attacks against Americans and it seems that a lot of Muslim people agree with these attacks. According to 2005 Pew Poll, just over Half of Moroccans and 49% of Jordanians think such attacks are justifiable.

This is the combustible atmosphere that the Americans' obsessions with growing military power, along with its unilateral policy have created, an atmosphere full of tension and hatred and no one to blame for all this but the U.S.A.

America has been always perceived as the strongest nation militarily and economically speaking, thus, creating a unipolar world where the U.S.A is the core. But with the unilateralism that characterized Bush's policy in one hand, and the Global opposition to the Iraqi war on the other hand,^37(*) America's position in the world should be falling back. The other nations lurking for their opportunity to emerge in the international scene were aware that this the moment that they were waiting for. they realized that they should take advantage of the fact that U.S.A self-image is eroding and compete to gain predominance .these great powers which returned to the scene of competition are: China, Russia and the European Union. In fact, these great powers are trying to get as much importance as America. China for example believed that military power is the key to restore its image as the preeminent power in East-Asia. Russia is trying to revive the lost glories of the Soviet Empire, while the European Union is longing for playing a crucial role in the world politics and economics. This competition or what Robert Kagan calls in his article "End of Dream, Return to History" "the jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations" is a proof about America's vulnerability.

Even the Islamic world started asserting his identity. It is true that Islam is not a nation; yet, Muslims still can develop a kind of religious nationalism. This is what Iran today is trying to implement in the international scene. The Iranian attempts to possess nuclear weapons and its stubbornness to this idea despite the global refusal are very emblematic. Iran wants to deliver a certain message- a very challenging message- that even the Islamic world which has been always portrayed as underdeveloped is able to compete with America; the superpower.

It would be easy now to draw an over- all mutilated image about the United States of America; an image whose main features are hatred and resentment, an image in which America is standing alone in the global, order after being abandoned by its allies and friends as a result of its notorious policies.

Here comes the question: Is it possible to beautify this ugly image especially that Bush who was blamed for all this damage is no longer the president of the U.S.A. Now, with Barrack Hussein Obama who was the first black in the American history to be elected for the American presidency, there are new speculations and new expectations. What can he do to repair this damaged image? Is he able to restore the American position within the international scene through the promises that he made in his presidential campaign?

IV- Obama and America Self-Image:

Before examining the role that he is going to play in restoring America self-image, let's first of all see who Barrack Obama is; examine his origins and what enabled him to be elected as the American president even though he is black.^38(*) Barrack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 to a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas. His parents separated when he was 2 year-old. His mother married an Indonesian man in 1967, and the family moved to Jakarta where he attended schools and thus, taught the Indonesian language. At the age of 10, he moved back to Hawaii with his maternal grandparents. He graduated with honors from Panahou Academy at the age of 18. He was one of three black students at the school. This was the moment when he first became conscious of racism and what it meant to be African-American by discussing how he struggled to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage (a mother from Kansas, a father from Kenya and a step-father from Indonesia). He studied for two years at Occidental College at LosAngelos, and then he transferred to Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science. In 1985, he moved to Chicago where he worked as a community organizer with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeled Gardens public housing development in the city's south side and during this time, he joined the Trinity United Church of Christ. In 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. After two years, he was elected the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated ^39(*)magna cum laude in 1991; the second of three highest levels of achievements that a student can reach.

He worked for both Republicans and Democrats after being elected as Democrat in the Illinois State Senate. He helped drafting legislations on ethics, expanded health care services and early childhood education. In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the American House of Representatives. In November 2004 general election, he received 70% of the votes against Keyes; the African-American Republican nominee and thus, Obama became only the third African-American elected to the US Senate since Reconstruction. This striking success was due his attitudes towards 9/11 attacks and the war with Iraq as he was opposed to what he calls "dump wars" and above all this, his call for union despite all the differences" We are one people, pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America".

Before judging whether Barrack Obama managed to purify the American misty self-image or no, one should mention that he is a newly elected president, and the points that he made in his presidential campaign should be seen as future promises or taken from a theoretical point of view, with some of them being already put in practice. So, the focus in the current paragraph will be put on Obama's presidential campaign: the promises that he made, the issues that these promises are dealing with and a foreshadowing look to estimate to what degree these promises will succeed in curing the problem of bad reputation that America has been suffering from. Right from the very first days of his presidency, he makes it clear that he is totally aware of the problems that the U.S.A was going through. In his Inaugaural speech that he delivered in January 20^th, 2009, he admitted that:

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. (Obama, Inaugural speech).

That is why, he was determined, along with his vice president Joe Biden to put a kind of strategy or a plan to rescue the U.S.A self-image abroad

"I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, who yearn for a better future,

Among the reasons that enabled Obama to win the presidential election of 2008 is his strong opposition to the Iraqi War which characterized his career as a politician. He predicted that the outcomings of this war, which he described as a «dump war», would severly damage the U.S.A image both nationally and internationally speaking. In October 2002, Barrach Obama showed a lot of courage by expressing publically his opposission to the Iraqi War and his disapproval with George.W.Bush's policy through a speech «Against the Iraqi War» in which he explained his attitude towards this war and stated the reasons that had pushed him to reject George.W. Bush's policies concerning the regime change in Iraq:

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That is what I am opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president. (Barrack Obama)

According to this speech, Obama was not opposed to wars; he was against wars with undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences. That is why he was very determined to end this war which lasted more than W.W.I and W.W II in order to invest the military strengh and economic ressources to fight Taliban and AL-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and invest the rest in national issues. So, along with his vice president Joe Biden, he is setting a program for the Withdrawal of the troops. A responsible and phased withdrawel. Both of them beleived that:

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month -- which would remove all of them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 -- more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism. (Obama-Biden Iraq Agenda, January 2009).

They will try also to help the Iraqi government take control of its own home instead of relying on the Americans by ^40(*)« encouraging political accomodation ». This will enable the Iraqis ^41(*)to make political compromises, secure their country and invest their oil revenues in reconstructing the infrastructure severly damaged by the war.In fact, Barrack Obama was conscious that the U.S-led war on Iraq damage its infrastructure, and because of this war, more than ^42(*)five million Iraqis are now refugees in neighbouring countries going through what Barrack Obama calls ^43(*)« Humanitarian Crisis ». Strongly beleiving in both the moral obligation and the responsability that the U.S.A has toward other countries, Barrack Obama decided to solve this humanitarian crisis that the Iraqi people are facing ^44(*)by forming an international working group to solve this issue and providing at least $2 billion dollars to expand services to neighbouring refugees.

As far as the whole region is concerned,^45(*) Barrack Obama wants to spread stability between Iraq and its neighbours espacially Iran and Syria. In order to acheive this aim, he will secure the Iraqi borders and prevent its neighbours from intervening in the Iraqi affairs. Nationaly speaking, ^46(*)Iraq has been notorious with its sectarian groups. That is why, Obama calls for reconciliation to avoid going into a civil war:

At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda. (Obama)

This is by no means an easy task, but if Barack Obama succeeds in fullfillng this promise that he has delivered, above all the promise to end the Iraqi War and remove the fighting armies out of it, it will be a huge step in purifying the U.S.A self-image and restoring its credebility. This step will ease the accumulating feelings of anger, resentement and mistrust toward the U.S.A. Ending the Iraqi war is the magical key to help the U.S.A get over its actual position as a threat to the world peace and revive the old glories. This is what John Edwards expressed by stating that:

In the wake of the Iraq debacle, we must restore America's reputation for moral leadership and reengage with the world. We must move beyond the empty slogan 'war on terror' and create a genuine national security policy that is built on hope, not fear. Only then can America once again become a beacon to the world. (John Edwards).

It is agreed upon that the U.S.A has lost the support of its European allies due to its unilateral policy which cares only for the U.S interests. A close scrutiney of some historical events shows that America used to have strong relationship with its European allies- dating back to President Trauman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and others- when an American president could rally European support because he was respected abroad. Obama seems to be determined to regain those supporters by renewing the American deplomacy; a renewal based mainly on multilateralism and the establishment of an effective partnership with the Europeans through encouraging the enlargement of this body. This is what Barack Obama promised to acheive in a speech that he delivered on July 2007 and published by the magazine of Foreign Affairs concerning Foreign policy by stating that:

To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institution necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation. It will come when we convince other governments and people that they, too, have a stake in effective partnership. (Obama).

This statement came after Barack Obama's realization that the policy of unilateralism that America had been embracing is a usless one and will not help America face the challenges of a new mellenuim:

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed andAfter thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example. (Obama).

To strengthen the relationship between the United States and the European World, Barack Obama has put certain steps to be followed. He will work on rebuilding a stronger NATO in which the European Union will work hand in hand with America to provide support for Afghanistan by enhancing and accelerating a multibillion dollar effort for the reconstruction of this country-totally destroyed by the war over terrorsism. In addition, Barack Obama thinks that America and the European Union can cooperate to strenghthen counterterrorism policies through judicial, police, and Intelligence Corporation and this aim will not be fulfilled unless America regains the European confidence by working to close the Guantanamo Prison and ending the Bush administration's practice of locking people without telling them why or what they are charged of:

To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. (Obama)

In fact, this statement refers to the Guantanamo Prison, a cruial issue related to restoring U.S.A self-image. In fact, right from his first week in office, Barack Obama orderd the closing of the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay^47(*) to show a break from the Bush's administration to the war on terror in one hand, and^48(*) to work on restoring human rights by maintaining the American values and encouraging other countries to do so on the other hand.

Strenghthening the partnership between America and Europe for a better future is another difficult task for Barack Obama to fulfill. The difficulty lies in the fact that the European countries want to keep their distance from the United States due to the unilateral policies of the previous president George .W. Bush; they are not sure whether the U.S.A deserves a second chance or no. It is up to the new President Barack Obama to gain their trust and confidence by promising what he can deliver and delivering what he has promised, but above all this, protecting their interests and perceiving them as an influential power.

«Terrorism»; a word which still have a great impact on the Americans till today, they have experienced it on the 9/11 events, it is been a long time since that day, yet, it is influencing their every day life. Being the newly elected president, Obama believes that one of his priority dyring this four year presidency is to restore the Americans' sense of security by combating not only terrorism in American territory but global terroris.^49(*) He makes it clear that fighting terrorism is a collective endavour which needs cooperation and coordination. According to him, the scape goats of this extreme manifestation of violence are the Americans themselves due to the global opposition to their policies, and the Islamic world which is the n°1 accused for this. So this gobal accusation, terrorism becames related to the Muslims and espacially to the organization of AL-Qaeda and its leader Osama Ben Laden notorious by his strong antipathy toward the U.S.A. and Taliban. That is why, in this fight against terrorism, Barack Obama will put all the focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan ^50(*)which Osama Ben Laden lieutenants see as their home. He declared:

I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. (Obama)

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, Barack Obama's greatest fear is that terrorists manage to acquire them, thus, targetting not only America but the whole world. He is afraid that the misuse of these weapons will lead into a nuclear war. He expresses his unsatisfaction with the civilians'easy access to uranium. ^51(*)He adopted the Test Ban Treaty which was signed by John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1963 after the Cuban missle crisis which prohibited nuclear weapon test explosions and any other nuclear explosions in the three environment: in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. That is why he is determined to contain this nuclear threat to protect not only the United States of America but also the rest of the world by preventing the spraed of nuclear weapons and make sure that the other countries are not trying to build or develop any nuclear progam. In order to achieve this aim, ^52(*)Barack Obama will provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. ^53(*)He urges the other countries to adopt the law that he and Senator Richard Lugar have passed allowing the United States and its allies to detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of muss destruction through the world.

In this issue, the focus was put mainly on both Iran and North Korea since both countries are refusing to get rid of their nuclear program and trying to develop it despite the international strong opposition. This very fact may threaten the peace in both the Midde East and East Asia. In order to face this threat, Obama is calling to build what he calls «strong coalition» to solve this problem and convince both sides without resorting to violence- what George.W.Bush used to do:

We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use. (Obama)

These are the measures that Barack Obama is taking to fight terrorism and contain the nuclear threats. Unlike Bush's administration, Obama-Biden's administration is cooperating with the allies in order to achieve the common good and the policy of Barack Obama seems to be based not on the use of violence to impose its self-righteousness on others but on discussion as a peaceful way to spread the American ideals and values.

Barack Obama was not oblivious about the Israeli-Palestenian conflict. In fact, this conflict was given a priority in his agenda.

It will be the policy of my administration to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians as well as Israel and its Arab neighbors, (Natasha Mozgovaya)

As a president, Obama is obliged to go through this challenge and fix George.W.Bush's rash attempts to impose a new order in the Middle East by embracing pragmatism and patience to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution.

The Israeli-Palestenian conflict was seen as a matter on U.S national interests. Obama will work with both sides; the Israelis represented by their prime minister Benjamin Natanyahu and the palestenians represented by their president Mahmoud Abbas.^54(*) Barack Obama is determined to push for a final agreement supported by abroad international coalition including the Arab countries, Russia and the European Union, since the Israeli and Palestenian leadership are incapable of reaching an accord and that they will need all the pressure and persuasion the world can muster to take the last, fateful steps.^55(*) According to Obama, the main issue lies in terms of settlement, percentages of territorial annexation, land exchange, deviding and defining forms of sovregnity over Jerusalem, describing the attributes of a Paestenian State, and above all this, finding technical ways to resettle and compensate the refugees.

^56(*)Obama decided to deal with the Israeli-Plestenian conflict right from the 1967 bounderies. He is pushing the international scene to acknowledge the refugees' plight. ^57(*)Along with his Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama will focus on rebuilding Gaza and reopening it to trade and commerce and supporting Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestenian authority leader who was weakened by the fighting in Gaza. Obama also appointed George Mitchell, former peace negotiator in Northern Ireland as a U.S special envoy for the Middle East, ^58(*)who was known best known for peace making efforts and was appointed by the former president Bill Clinton to find ways to decrease the Israeli-Palestenian violence. After being introduced, Obama said about him:

Time and again, in public service and private life, he has acted with skill and acted with integrity. He will be fully empowered at the negotiating table, and he will sustain our focus on the goal of peace. (Ed Henry and Elisse Labott).

«From my experience there, I formed the conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be endedthe Israeli-Palestenian conflict can be ended, conflicts are created and conducted by human beings, and they can be ended by human beings.» (Ed Henry and Elisse Labot).

In fact, Barack Obama wanted to take use of his experience as he helped to resolve the Northern Ireland conflict which seemed to be intractable at that time.^59(*) He called the Palestenians to build up their security forces in order to decrease the influence of militant groups like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad so that they offer Israel the prospect of a prolonged peace in order to stop the loss of life among both the Israelis and the Palestenians and the suffering taking place in Gaza.^60(*) Along with Barack Obama, he called on Israel to open its borders with Gaza to humanitarian aid and commerce.

This is Barack Obama's agenda as far as the Israeli-Palestenian conflict is concerned. In order to fulfill it, Obama, again and unlike George.W.Bush's policy, is working with the American allies, in an attempt to reestablish the U.S.A self-image as a nation whose policy depends on multilateralism rather than unilateralism, taking into consideration the interests of the weaker nations.

V- Barack Obama and the Restoration of the U.S.A Self-Image Abroad

1-Obama and the Arab World:

As the U.S.A makes history by the election of the first African-American president amid great expectations for change, so the Arab World hopes this change will include a substantial shift in U.S foreign policy. Arabs make no secret of their relief that Bush is finally leaving:

Arab leaders must privately be breathing a sigh of relief to see the exit of the man whom many admit as having been both the worst American president and... (Sana Abdallah).

The very first fact which ressured them is that Barack Obama carries an Arab-Muslim middle name «Hussein». This implies that Barack Hussein Obama will have the needed audacity, courage and support to introduce real changes to the traditional pro-Israel U.S policies in recent decades and confront the influence of Israeli lobbies in Washington. They hope that Barack Obama will go to be more moderate in tackling the Israeli-Palestenian issues and take into consideration the Israeli transegression and human rights violation seen in so many occasions like the 23-day Israeli war on Gaza that killed more^61(*) than 1,300 Palestenians, most of them civilians and hundreds of children, injured over 5,300 and destroyed thousands of buildings and homes.

It shows me that Barack Obama, who is due here in Cairo on June 4 to give an address to the Islamic world, has the chance to significantly reverse negative Arab attitudes toward the U.S. His mere election has already produced some welcome changes for the better. (Shebly Telhami, p1).

^62(*)Aaccording to an annual survey of Arab Public Opinion made by Telhami, Nearly half of Arabs polled in the last two months in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates said they had a "very positive" (11%) or "somewhat positive" (34%) view of Obama. Contrast that with George Bush, who Arabs regularly cited as the world leader they disliked the most. In the current 2009 poll, Obama does not register among disliked leaders, but Bush even out of office remains the No. 1 most disliked at 61%. And according to the same Poll, In Saudi Arabia, native land of Osama bin Laden, Obama is viewed very positively by 10% and somewhat positively by another 69% for a remarkable approval rating of 79%. This is a huge shift in the Arabs attitudes towards America and its leaders and this is a big achievement for Obama as an American president. In a speech he delivered in April7 when he was in Turkey, the first Muslim country he visited since he has taken the office, he declared that «the U.S. will never be at war with Islam.» In fact, Barack Obama's words and actions have resonated positively through out the Arab World and Muslim World. In an interview between Kiran Chetry, an anchor in C.N.N's American Morning and Hichem Milhem of Al-Arabeya about President Barack Obama message to the Muslims the latter said:

People realize that there is a new tone, that there is a new content, that there is a new language. Gone are the combustible words that President Bush used to use like Islamo [sic] Fascism. Now the new president talks about engagement, he talks about partnership, he talks about respect, mutual interests. President Bush seemed to many Arabs and Muslims every time he talks to them as if he is talking down to them, as if he is lecturing them. This new president is trying to engage them as potential partners in the fight against the real enemy of the United States and the real enemy of these governments which is al Qaeda. The president doesn't talk about the war on terror in general because the war on terror is a war on a tactic. He has a well-defined enemy called al Qaeda. He doesn't clump like, President Bush, all Islamic groups. He focuses only on al Qaeda. All of these things, they are nuances and people recognizes nuances and they appreciate that.

Look. President Bush, the way he framed the issue, the war on terrorism created a conceptual muddle and he confused a lot of people. When you fight an enemy, you have to define your enemy very well and President Obama is trying to do that.

Marc Ginsberg showed his support for Barack Obama in an article that he wrote for the Huffington Post. According to him, The American President's attempts to restore the U.S.A self-image in the Arab World will ^63(*)«facilitate an expedited withdrawal from Iraq, help incubate a new peace initiative between Israel and the Palestinians, arrest perhaps the growing strength of Hamas and Hezbollah, and enable the region to better acclimate to the need to develop and reform...and this is just the top of the list»

In other words, the Arab world is expecting that Barack Obama bridges the gap between it and the rest of the world; a gap created out ^64(*)of 9/11 legacy,the misunderstanding generating by the war on terrorism, the invasion of Iraq,Guantanamo, Abu Ghrib. This gap resulted in negative images about the Islamic world and Obama, through the things that he made; promosing to close down Guantanamo and to get out of Iraq, sending George Mitchell to mediate Arab-Israeli peacemaking is trying to repair this mutilated image about the Islamic World, something that the Arabs are yearning for a long time ago.

2- Obama and the European World:

Obama and his team were determined to restore the U.S.A reputation in the world and Europe in particular. ^65(*)Obama promised that he will listen to the European and rebuild transatlantic partnership with them. He was determined to change the way with which America was perceived:

"The day I'm inaugurated, America will look at itself differently, and the world will look at America differently,"(Obama, Berlin, Jermany, jan8, 2008).

People strongly believed in him because of his charismatic personality and promise of fundamental change and his attempts to repair the damage done by George W. Bush's administration whose policy of unilateralism led to its unpopularity.

According to Martin Scultz, «Through a return to our common values and goals, the natural allies - America and Europe - have the opportunity to solve global problems and build a new architecture of peace and stability in the world.» By this token, the policy of Unilateralism is useless, what is needed is a strong partnership and cooperation between the U.S.A and Europe. ^66(*)In fact, Barack Obama seems to be more popular in Europe than in the U.S.A. Barack Obama is always highlighting the importance of the role the European allies play in the international scene. For instance, in the case of Aeghanistan, he stressed that the European allies will help the Americans carry the burden. His strong opposition to the Iraqi War which has long been unpopular in Europe contributed to this shift of attitudes toward the U.S.A. He has initiated change not only in Iraq but also in many different areas starting with the relation between with Iran and Russia to the closal of Guantanamo. For the Europeans, Barack Obama represents the antithesis of George.W.Bush and this is something which makes all the difference. For them, Barack Obama symbolizes the American spirit in the Europeans' hearts, he certainly represent the America that exist in the Europeans' wildest imagination.

Didac Gutiérrez-Peris answered the question «why Europe does love Obama» in an article written for the Mundo Project by stating that:

Europe would like to speak with one strong and respected voice, moving the world to fight against the climate change and poverty. Obama does this. Europe's greatest wish is to some day be a leader able to fight around the world for its values (democracy, human rights, justice, economical development, pacifism). Obama does this. Europe's biggest hope is to build an international system where multilateralism and the power of ideas will always be stronger than military power and unilateral acts.

Eight years of Bush's Administration have shown how Europe is not ready at all to accomplish the hard task of being leader of the world. Unfortunately, we have shown that we are not ready to replace even a leader more worried about his internal problems (as United States did during the Bush Administration) than about the world. Europeans have definitively shown their lack of unity and their weak capacity to produce hope and courage among their citizens.

Why does Europe love Obama? It is not difficult to answer: it's simply because he represents our failure as Europeans to play an important role in the international arena. Because he represents the future, and not the past. Because with just a strong political discourse and the power of rhetoric he can produce record-breaking participation in the election, while Europeans politicians provoke exactly the opposite.

One united country speaking with one voice, an international reputation and the power of ideas: that's Obama, as well as the European dream. (Didac Gutiérrez-Peris).

This feeling of admiration that Europeans share for Barack Obama is shown when the latter visited London and ^67(*)when more than 50.000 people turned out to cheer him. When asked about their opinions about Barack Obama and the role he is going to play in restoring the U.S.A self-image, they said that «Obama is the symbol of American renewal. They know three things about him. That he is young. That he is African-American. And that he has a Muslim name.

Europeans live in countries with large, unassimilated Muslim minorities. The idea that someone with Obama's name and background could become President of the United States astonishes and impresses them. Europeans are thrilled by the idea that the United States can suddenly transform itself from a pariah in the world into an inspiration to the world.» (Bill Schneider).

The Europeans are aware that Barack Obama is different from the other politicians and is able to deliver real changes as far as the U.S image is concerned by keeping his promises and ^68(*)playing a constructive role in bringing about reform at the United Nations which is something vital. The structure of the Security Council is 60 years old. It still gives the victors of the Second World War permanent membership of the Council, and a veto over its decisions. To change that will inevitably dilute the privileges of those nations, including the United States.

Karsten D. Voigt, Coordinator of German-American Cooperation explained the higher level to which Barack Obama is bringing to transatlantic relations between the U.S.A and Germany by stating that:

I was asked to speak to you about transatlantic cooperation after the U.S. elections of last November 4 and a couple of months before parliamentary elections in Germany on September 27. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency has raised great hopes in the U.S. and in many other countries for a fundamental change in American policies. Also in Germany the majority of the people across party affiliations have enormous trust in the new president. When he visited Berlin during his campaign, more than 200,000 citizens flocked to Tiergarten park to listen to his speech. Between 70 and 80 percent of Germans would have voted for him (if that had been possible). And his first acts in government have been generally very well received, for instance his announcement to close the detention camp at

Guantanamo, his positive signals to the Muslim world and his readiness to listen to international partners and review the hitherto existing approach to central foreign policy issues.

This positive attitude in the German population about the new U.S. president makes it easy for me in Germany to promote a strong partnership with the Unites States. Germany and its European partners should use the present opportunity to revitalize the transatlantic relations because these relations have lost nothing of their importance. The U.S. will remain Germany's

Most important partner outside the European Union. We are NATO partners and share many common values, interests and the historical memory of the Berlin Airlift, the partnership during the Cold War and the reunification of Germany. (Karsten D. Voigt, p1).

By this token, Since President Obama took office, there is also a positive rapprochement between the U.S. and Europe; there is some kind of cooperation between U.S.A and Europe as far as regional conflicts are concerned. Both sides are converging in their strategies to ^69(*)stabilize regional conflict situations. While the government of former President Bush partly undertook the transformation of repressive governments by force, actively exported Western ideas ofdemocracy and sharply confronted authoritarian, anti-Western regimes, President Obama wants to recalibrate American foreign policy. He announced to offer direct talks even to difficult governments such as those of Iran and Syria in order to test the possible room tonegotiate. In her nomination hearing before the Senate, Hillary Clinton said: "Smart powerrequires reaching out to both friends and adversaries." In late March 2009 President Obama sent a video message to the people of Iran in which he restated his commitment to dialogue. This willingness to talk shows a new openness and respect for the opinions even of opponents while at the same time stating the limits of such a dialogue. In the case of Iran these limits remain the rejection of any possible nuclear armament of Iran and of its support for terrorist organizations in the Middle East. The German and other European governments have long identified with this approach.

So, all the promises that Barack Obama has made : ending the war on Iraq within 16 month, fighting terrorism, containing the nuclear threat, ending the use of extraordinary rendition- an an issue that has created considerable tension in the transatlantic relationship in recent years and closing Guantanamo prison and prohibiting the use of torture as an interrogation technique will allow the European revive their old friendship and restore the Europeans' trust in the United States and its policies.

Not only were the European allies happy for the election of Barack Obama but also the U.N; the world body. The George.W.Bush's administration was notorious of its indifference toward the U.N and the treaties signed within this body. That is why; the Barack Obama's administration is determined to use the United Nations to restore the U.S.A self-image around the world, unlike its predecessor.

In fact, Barack Obama prepared an agenda concerning the U.N; an agenda which-according to Ian Williams-«may be expressed more subtly, but in the end no less forcefully than its predecessors. Indeed, it may even be more forceful, albeit more in harmony with UN objectives.»

Barack Obama was aware that the question of the United Nation is one of the most crucial issues that he needs to deal with and very rapidly by giving it a fresh look.^70(*) This will enable the U.S.A to reconnect with the U.N, restore its leadership around the world and reinvigorate this institution as the globe peacemaking enterprise.^71(*) In order to show the priority that Obama gives to this body, he travelled to New York City in the first few weeks of his renure and delivered an address to the U.N informing the world community that America is back and ready to engage with all member-states. He also proclaimed his support for the continuation of the U.N reform movements and the enactement of changes to modernize the institution and get rid of archaic rules and most important, to confront the new twenty-first century perils of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and failed states.

CONCLUSION

Policy making is by no means an easy task. It determins a nation's status among other nations and its destiney. This was the case for George W.Bush's not only policy but the whole administration. It is obvious that the United States has lost its reputation due to him. His moral arrogance, his heavy dependence on violent military intervention, his refusal to deal with the world bodies like the U.N, the illegitimate war that he had waged Iraq and thus the Islamic morld, his violation to human rights incarnated in the Guantanamo Prison... A very long list of transgressions made by George.W. Bush led to the strong feeling of resentement and hatred shared almost by people around the globe and severly damaged the American self-image.

America has lost it allies and friends due to its hawkish policy based mainly on self-interest, and it has been hard for the latters to trust the United States again, and this in some way has left the U.S.A an isolated nation outside and vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the U.S.A biggest fear. These are the reasons behind people's deception and raise strong Anti-Americanism especially because of the administration's military -based diplomacy seen mostly over the past 8 years.

These are the reasons behind the credibility crisis that America has been going through as it becomes difficult for it to deal with both national and international issues. It seems that George.W. Bush is the number one accused for this deterioration.

No one can deny the fact that every body was thrill to the fact that George W. Bush is no longer the president of the United States. This ment new change, new promises, a lot of hope and optimism. Barack Obama is totally aware of the current situation in which the U.S.A has been stuck. He knew that America will not be able to confront the terror coming from other nations unless it is supported by its allies and friends, and in order to regain their confidence, he must establish a policy in which he will work hand in hand with them.

What I wanted to highlight in my dissertation is the fat that policy making matters a lot in shaping nations' attitudes and opinions towards other nations, let alone the United States of America. In fact, George. W. Bush with his policy brought the U.S image down; however, Barack Obama brings it to higher level, a fresh one; new ideas, new spirit, more respect for the intrnainal scene, promises that the world has been longing for right after Bush's exit.

Works Cited

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5554819.ece

Ed Henry and Elisse Labot, George Mitchall Named Special envoy for the Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/06/barack-obama-foreign-policy

Irving Kristol, the Neo-Conservative Persuasion, Weekly Standards, August 25, 2003.

Karsten.D.Voights, Transatlantic Relations following the U.S Election: New Perspectives

Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol, the War over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's

Marc Ginsberg, Changing Perceptions about the U.S.A in the Arab World, Huffington Post.

Marie- France Toine, Does Anti Americanism Exist? In Lacorne et al. eds. Rise and Fall.

Natasha Mozgovaya, Obama: We Will Agressively seek lasting Middle East Peace, Haaretz,

http://www.cfr.org/ publication/18311/obama-biden-Iraq-agenda-January.2009.html.

Paul Hollander, Anti-Americanism, Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1990-1965, Oxford

Richard Perle, Public Speech in New York City, February13, 2003, Nixon on Bush, New

Robert Kagan, End of Dreams, Reeturn to History, Policy Reviw, 2007, Hoover Institution

Sana Abdallah, Arabs Cautious over Obama, Happy about Bush Exit, Middle East Times, 25.

http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/arabs_cautious_over_obama_happy_about_bush_exit/4491/

Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global

Walter A. McDougal Pomised Land: Crussader State, the American Encounter with the

* ¹ John L. O'Sullivan; a lawyer and journalist, Annexation, 1845, the United States Magazine and Democratic Review 17, July 1845.

* ⁴ Seong-Ho Lim, `Clashing Perceptions of America in Trans-Pacific Relations; The Case of A;ericanism in South Korea.' The Japaneese Journal of American Studies, No 18 (2007).

* ⁶ Seong-Ho Lim`Clashing Perceptions of America in Trans-Pacific Relations: The Case of Anti-Americanism in South Korea'. The Japaneese Journal of American Studies, No 18 (2007), p 149.

* ⁸ Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, `America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order', Cambridge, p 3.

* ⁹ Stefan Halpher and Jonathan Clarke,`America Alone:The Neo-Conservatives and The Global Order', Cambridge, p9.

* ¹⁰ Irving Kristol, ` `The Neo-Conservative Persuasion,' `Weekly Standards, August25, 2003,pp23-25.

* ¹¹ James Fallows, ``The Age of Morduch,''Atlantic Monthly, Septamber 2003,p90.

* ¹² William Bennetm, Why We Fight: Moral Clarityand War on Terrorism (Washington D.C: Regnery, 2003), p.56.

* ¹³ Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order( New York: Knopf, 2003), p.3.

* ¹⁴ Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p14.

* ¹⁵ William Bennet, Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on terrorism( Wqshingthon, D.C: Regnery, 2003), p.56.

* ¹⁸ Andrew Kohut, America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

* ¹⁹ Erez Manela, Wilson's Radical Vision for Global Governance, Harvard University, p 4.

* ²⁰ Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: the Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p 97

* ²¹ Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and The Global Order, Camdridge, p, 212.

* ²² Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone : The Neo-Conservatives and The Global Order, Camdridge, p 201.

* ²³ Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone : The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p 211.

* ²⁴ Condolezza Rice, Why We Know Iraq Is lying, New York Times, January 28, 2003, p.A25.

* ²⁵ For Full Details, see Michael Duffy and James Carney, « a Question of Trust », Time, January 28, 2003, p.23

* ²⁷ Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p212.

* ²⁹ Andrew Kohut, America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

* ³⁰ Andrew Kohut, America's image, Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

* ³¹ Andrew Kohut, America's image, Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

* ³² Andrew Kohut, America's image, Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

* ³³ Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Camdridge, p 259.

* ³⁴ Fred Barnes, Our Friends the French-Really! The Daily Standard, March 12, 2003.

* ³⁵ James Cox, « Arab Nations See Boycotts of US Products; West Bank Action Ignites Grassroots Activity in Region «, U.S.A Today, June 25, 2OO2, p.B 3.

* ³⁶ Andrew Kohut, America's Image in the world : Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project..

* ³⁹ Magna cum: the second of three highest levels of achievements that a student can reach whey they finish their studies at college.

* ⁴⁷Ed Henry: C.N.N Senior White House correspondent, the 44th President First 1OO days.

* ⁴⁹ Barack Obam, Renewing American Leadership, Foreign Affairs, July, 2007.

* ⁵² Barack Obama, Renewing American Leadership, Foreign Affairs, July, 2007.

* ⁵³ Barack Obama, Renewing American Leadership, Foreign Affairs, July, 2007.

* ⁵⁶ Glenn Kessler, Obama`s Signals on Middle East Scrutinezd by all sides. Washington Post, P. A09

* ⁵⁷ Glenn Kessler, Obama`s Signals on Middle East Scrutinezd by all sides. Washington Post, P. A09

* ⁶¹ Sana Abdallah, Arabs Cautious over Obama, Happy about Bush Exit, Middle East Times, 25.

* ⁶³ Marc Ginsberg, Changing Perceptions about America in the Arab World, Huffington Post.

* ⁶⁴ Kiran Chetry, Muslim World « likes » Obama's words, C.N.N's American Morning.

* ⁶⁵ George Peter Schmitz, from Mania to Mistrust, Special Online International.

* ⁶⁹ Karsten D. Voigt, Transatlantic Relations following the U.S Elections- New Perspectives with President Obama, p10.

* ⁷⁰ Stephan Schlesinger, a New Administration and the U.N, World Policy Institute.

* ⁷¹ Stephan Schlesinger, a New Administration and the U.N, World Policy Institute.