President Obama’s priorities

US President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech was, in fact, the launch of the 2012 election campaign. His speech lasted 61 minutes. The president determined the guidelines of US progress and set forth medium-term tasks. His priorities include spending cuts, tax-collection improvement, and larger US commodity exports.

Formally, the US president offered a two-year work program for his administration, although his speech, its dynamics, make it clear that the key points constitute Obama’s future election program. Moreover, this message has a lot to do with Obama’s election message in 2008, considering that the war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the struggle with the global financial crisis were uppermost on the agenda at the time. Obama’s current agenda lists innovative projects, including an education reform and upgrading infrastructure, as strategic objectives, along with budget cuts and the usage of “clean energy technologies.”

“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the Moon. The science wasn’t even there yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs,” he said.

resident Obama eloquently emphasized the importance of combined efforts: “Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of co­operation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.” Political analysts note that President Obama used “we” 165 times, “our” 165 times, “job” 25 times, and “deficit” 12 times in his speech. Not coincidentally, these analysts portray Obama’s State of the Union address as one done by a moderate centrist interested in close collaboration with the Republicans. The Day sought comment from Yevhen KAMINSKY, Ukraine’s leading expert in North American issues, deputy departmental head, Institute of World Economics and International Relations.

Yevhen KAMINSKY:“In first place, Obama uses the notion of continuity of American leadership over the past 1,5 years. We had been long anticipating something like this to happen, for this notion has everything to do with the possibility of facing new post-So­viet countries. To this end, he wasn’t his true self, on the one hand, but on the other hand he was no different from his European partners when he talked so much about all those innovative pro­jects and modernization, for this is actually all these partners busy themselves with. Moreover, Barack Obama is no different from his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, who constantly talks of “modernization.” I believe what we have here is a hidden understanding of what has happened in 2007 and early 2010: a systemic crisis of the capitalist system. Previously, this topic was discussed mainly by experts, political analysts, economists. President Obama broached the subject, using words that left little room for misinterpretation.

“The third point is that Obama’s State of the Union speech was broadcast several days after President Hu Jintao of the People’s Republic of China had his official visit to Washington; the PRC is struggling to outrun the US as a global leader. I believe that there were last-minute changes made in the text of President Obama’s speech.

“Another noteworthy point is that the president wasn’t exactly clear on how the United States had overcome the crisis. What he had to say makes one believe that the US has overcome this crisis and reached a level where you can discuss the current administration’s effective efforts in combating the global crisis, and that within the US. A closer look at President Obama’s speech shows that he understands that much is still to be done, that there remain key problems to be solved in the US economy, including the budget deficit, the hair-raising public debt (worth 14 trillion USD), and the “frozen” unemployment rate that leaves the US exposed to high-risk social tensions.

“There are many spheres where he can do little, if anything. Above all, the staggering military budget appropriations. There are numerous proposals aimed at curbing these expenses. Those behind such proposals feel sure the federal budget will prosper, and that lots of problems can be solved that way. However, all of them seem to forget that the US economy largely survives due to the military-industrial complex (MIC). The problem with the US economy is that it is essentially virtual. Without the MIC, it would be totally virtual, for this would affect the Boeing Company which is working for the MIC, and so on.”

Did Obama succeed in winning Republican support, considering that they constitute the majority in the House of Representatives?

“Definitely not in regard to the health care reform which Obama managed to push through. In this matter Republicans remain resolved, regardless of what Obama had to say in his State of the Union address. In fact, he was vague about the idea of democratization that was always close to the Republicans, as well as the Democrats, under Clinton’s presidency. The fact remains that, here in Ukraine, we have no reasons to expect Obama to alter his stand, or that the United States, as a global power, will control the democratization process in the post-Soviet space the way his predecessor Bill Clinton did. All we have is the possibility of Republicans continuing to pressure Barack Obama, for it is an American tradition to champion human rights, freedom of expression, and journalists’ rights on the international arena. In this sense, we saw no clear picture; the president failed to give us reason to assume that he would radically change his stand. This, in turn, is reason enough for the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to maintain their cri­ti­cal position.”

Quite a few analysts note that Obama’s State of the Union speech actually coincides with the launch of his 2012 pre­sidential campaign. Does he stand a real chance of re-election?

“Lots of things can change during the election campaign. Barack Obama can change, too. What he said in his [State of the Union] speech could be discarded while competing with the Republican candidate. I believe the presidential campaign will start in the next couple of months; and that Ukraine and Georgia could be involved, along with NATO expansion, relations with the European Union, and the new stand in regard to China. There will be a lot we’ll hear during this election campaign. I wasn’t surprised to hear President Obama say that he would run for a second term. He did so at the peak of his ratings from the past six or twelve months. Apparently, the idea is to make the situation perfectly clear, so as to avoid Democratic competition — in other words, to have the Democratic Party bank on him, rather than anyone else, during the 2012 presidential race.

“Another issue is that Russia’s pre­si­dential campaign [the elections are provisionally set for March 11, 2012 – Ed.] may well influence that in the US. I believe that the results of the presidential election in the Russian Federation should be seriously considered. Medvedev or Putin: who will be the next president of Russia will influence the US presidential campaign and Washington’s policy in regard to Russia.”

Can you point to a Republican who can compete, even beat Obama in the upcoming presidential race?

“I can’t think of any known political figures. Judging by the previous campaign, there should appear a Republican, somebody totally unexpected, like a Republican Obama. This involves a number of circumstances, as mentioned above, including the Russian and Chinese vectors, as well as the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think, there could be a Republican candidate, a man who has made his statements clear. Sarah Palin’s experience serves to prove that any such poli­tical/candidate career may well end dramatically in the States.”