THE "GROUP HUG" THEORY OF DIPLOMACY

The increasingly infantile foreign policy of the US should be a growing matter of concern to most Americans. Anne Bayefsky writes:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

After all, who among us is not for world peace?

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

...The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

You have to read the entire piece to understand the incredible naivete and childish grandiosity of Obama's insane power ploy. Does he actually believe that the force of his personality can charm North Korea or Iran into making nice? Is this man a certifiable lunatic?

As lunatics go, Obama is even crazier than most--and more dangerous. He is, in effect, gambling away our national security in the hopes of being able to trade the mere Presidency of the US into a chance to become King of the Universe--or at least the next UN Secretary General. Obama clearly only sees his current (undeserved) position as just a stepping stone to planetary godhood. His narcissism is breathtaking--and we are all going to suffer for it.

Bayefsky concludes:

Far from bolstering his flagging image, the president’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality

.

Relevant to this discussion is a comment that Mark Steyn made in passing about Obama's nuclear naivete:

It's not just embarassing to hear the so-called "leader of the free world" talking like a 14-year old who's been up in his room listening to "Imagine" for too long. I fear this presidency has the makings of global tragedy.

We are headed for a global tragedy because the "group-hug" theory of diplomacy is therapeutic psychobabble elevated to serious political discourse by the children of postmodern nihilism and their narcissistic self-indulgence.

Addendum: I wonder which postmodern messiah will win the "Demagogue of the Decade" award? It's a toss-up for sure.



VS