:: Nihal Singh

100-day old Obama impresses, depresses

S. Nihal Singh

April.30: Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt promised quick action to combat the Great Depression of 1929 within his "first 100 days" in office — effectively 100 hours of legislative time — it has become de rigueur to clock the success or failure of a new leader around the world by this Rooseveltian measure. How then does US President Barack Obama, who broke many taboos and raised hopes at a time of doubt and depression in achieving office, measure up to the standard?

The Rooseveltian parallel is apposite in Mr Obama’s case because of the problems in his in-tray at home and abroad. He faces a world economic meltdown triggered by the US, two low intensity wars, sullen relations with Russia, two nuclear-related political crises in Iran and North Korea, the albatross of Israel and an antagonist world crossed by President George W. Bush’s method of declaring American supremacy and conducting inter-state relations.

The contrast between President Bush’s record and his successor’s promises on the campaign trail could hardly be starker. Mr Obama’s greatest achievement has been to change the mood music at home and around the world even as he has tried to fulfil some of his promises. It is inevitable in the intractable and contentious nature of the problems he faces that his first 100 days must be judged.

First, in the positive column must be placed the commitment to close Guantanamo prison, pushing through a strong economic bill and blueprint for economic recovery, addressing climate change, announcing a central US role in international organisations, symbolically declaring his commitment to global nuclear disarmament and making his first moves towards Cuba, Iran, Iraq withdrawal and shifting the focus of the US defence budget even while increasing it. But some of the President’s actions reveal the pitfalls ahead, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the banks’ bailout.

Perhaps the greatest challenges Mr Obama faces lie in the increasing bitterness and frustration the Republican opposition is displaying at home. The existential fear the Right in America — still a considerable force — harbours is the philosophical and ideological bent of the Obama administration. The new President, as every American, still sings the virtues of capitalism, but is willing to be pragmatic enough to borrow some European concepts of regulation and social safety net to conjure up the dreaded word "socialist" in US conservative eyes.

The American political climate was moulded by the so-called "Reagan revolution" and honed in eight years by Mr Bush in his pursuit of neoconservative goals of unalloyed world supremacy buttressed by American might. Both the Republicans of the Jackson school and the Wilsonians agree on the goals of US uniqueness and exceptionalism. Where they disagree is on the methods and on greater recognition by the Obama administration that the world has changed and US power is best employed as a last resort, giving diplomacy more room. Mr Obama’s dilemma is that Republicans will use the evocative symbols of the diminution of American power around the world to beat his administration with.

On the economic front, alarm bells are already ringing on the banks’ bailout plan and the dying automobile industry, the symbol of American industrial supremacy, and on the escalating Afghan war. In West Asia, the new administration has appointed a special envoy and done little beyond reiterating the two-state formula, given Israel’s overwhelming influence on US policy. On Afghanistan, a special representative is hitting the regional capitals even as alarm over Pakistani developments grows by the day.

On Cuba, Iran and North Korea, the Obama admiration has set the stage for a new approach, either by taking small steps or by changing the mood music. Tough choices lie ahead as the regional actors interact. A somewhat more substantive promise of "resetting the button" on relations with Russia has led to the first substantive talks on reducing nuclear stockpiles with a view to reaching a new agreement by year-end.

The contours of some of these challenges have already become apparent. In effect, Washington has not given up its objective of containing and constricting Russia while seeking a better relationship. Moscow’s cooperation in achieving some of the US goals, particularly in relation to Afghanistan and Iran, will be dependent upon receiving satisfaction on its own interests. On Iraq, the US will leave a shaky Iraqi government in office after withdrawing troops although Mr Obama has given himself a fallback position with a hefty complement of "trainers" remaining in place.

It is, however, on Afghanistan and Pakistan that Mr Obama seems to be floundering. His administration is, in a sense, trying to balance a troop "surge" with muscular diplomacy, particularly in persuading Pakistan to aid American efforts. The domestic situation in Pakistan has rightly alarmed the US and its enthusiasm in talking to "good Taliban" has been blunted by the manner in which the civilian-Army combine in Islamabad is surrendering control of non-tribal areas to the Taliban. The trends and gyrations in American policy have alarmed India.

It is, however, on economic and social issues that the President will face his greatest challenges at home. The banks’ bailout remains deeply unpopular while the failing automobile industry is leaving large numbers of people and communities unemployed and shattered. President Bill Clinton unsuccessfully tried to reform the country’s health service and Mr Obama’s new attempt to put an end to a national shame of the world’s most prosperous and industrialised country failing to provide healthcare to all its citizens will face stiff opposition. A cabal of pharmaceutical companies and doctors’ network has always frustrated the adoption of a rational comprehensive health plan. In Mr Obama’s case, vested interests are mounting an ideological offensive of equating the provision of healthcare for all with socialism, which, in the American political lexicon, is a deadly sin.

Mr Obama has suggested that his performance in the first 1,000 days, rather than in the traditional hundred, should be judged. He can be pretty certain that his wish will remain unfulfilled.