Obama's Handling of the Somali Pirate Standoff
Has the Stigma of Unilateralism Vanished in the New Administration?
Apr 23, 2009
For several years, Somali pirates have made it a standard practice to capture civilian vessels near the Horn of Africa and hold the crew and cargo for ransom against their home country. In April 2009, the pirates attacked their first American ship, the Maersk Alabama.
The unarmed American crew successfully repelled the armed attackers, and the offenders escaped in a lifeboat with only the Maersk’s captain as ransom. The scene made international news as Navy warships and FBI negotiators attempted to end the standoff peacefully for five days.
The curtain closed on the situation when Navy SEAL sharpshooters killed three pirates on standing orders from President Obama, captured the fourth, and rescued the captain.
What is Unilateralism?
Unilateralism is a term the American people became closely acquainted with during the Bush Administration. By its definition, it means the performance of an action from only one side, or in other words, an act America performs by itself.
Bush's Approach to Terror and Obama's to Piracy
After the attacks of September 11th, 2001, President Bush declared a global war on terrorism which would take the country first into Afghanistan and later Iraq. He formed a coalition with America’s allies, most heavily with the United Kingdom, and addressed the United Nations, giving the international community an opportunity, through UN resolutions, to voice their displeasure with deceased Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
By the previously stated definition, this is not unilateralism.
Eight years later, with a US captain held captive in a lifeboat by foreign pirates in foreign waters, President Obama ordered the strike of SEAL snipers against the hostage-takers. No resolutions were drafted. No coalition of allies, even with a single ally, was forged. The international community was not consulted as to what action to take.
This example, by the very nature of the word, is unilateralism.
Public Opinion and Media on Unilateralism
A significant part of the public’s dislike of President Bush, both within the United States and worldwide, was his execution of the wars. His strategy was declared a failed unilateral approach. The approach was even given the unpopular name of the Bush Doctrine, a term that does not formally exist on paper and has yet to receive a concise and commonly accepted definition.
Consider these headlines of critical articles taken from the widely read Huffington Post: “Bush Expands His Unilateral Warfare Doctrine” “Bush’s Unilateral Use of Executive Power” “Bush to Unveil ‘Unprecedented’ Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran.” It does not take much to extrapolate this to be the general public consensus of the current culture.
Now compare the above to a Huffington Post headline from just after the pirate crisis was resolved: “Obama Beats First National Security Test.” The article goes on to describe an early victory for the new President, and it praises his role in it. Similarly, it is not difficult to attach this to the public’s sentiment regarding the vastly popular current President who campaigned as a multilateralist vowing to revive America’s standing in the world.
Inconsistency Between Administrations
The problems with this kind of reasoning are obvious, and they can only be explained in one of two ways. Either there is confusion of what unilateralism actually is. This is improbable from a reasonably educated public and a supposedly learned, in-the-know news media. The other explanation is that the word’s meaning is known by the people and the press but deliberately ignored, and the policy is found acceptable under some Presidents while unacceptable from others. But that would be called bias, would it not?
 |
 |
 |
 |
