Power, that seductive illusion that attracks and traps

Let's face it. "The times, they are a changing," as the song goes. And the endless grappling for power goes on, endlessly. Let's take the U.S. elections as a starting point. Wasn't it Senator Barak Obama who said President George Bush's invasion of Iraq was wrong, that the unilateral approach to foreign affairs should be replaced by dialogue? That's what he said before and as the presidential campaign was getting underway. Not a few U.S. voters, and those who don't feel represented by either the Democrats or the Republicans, began to perk up their ears and think: well, maybe this guy is going to be different.

But power has a foundation that is very difficult to alter without causing the whole structure to come crumbling down. Not strange then that even the more critical voices begin to change once the illusion of power appears on the road map.

As long ago as last June Obama made it clear that he was not going to do anything to damage one of the traditional rallying points of U.S. foreign relations: Israel. In a speech on June 4th he assured anyone who might think otherwise that he considers Israel to be "sacrosanct" for Washington, and he even went so far as to mention an aid package of $30 billion to maintain the sacrosanct relationship.

Then there was a gradual erosion of the notion of "dialogue" for a more aggressive approach, more in line with traditional Democratic party think tanks. As the campaign began to heat up, with insinuations on the part of Republican candidate John McCain that Obama lacked experience or was even soft on terrorism, there was a gradual but evident change. For example, during the first TV campaign debate and in the context of the conflict in Georgia, Obama first criticized both parts (that is, Georgia and Russia) and called for a cease fire; later, in line with the more traditional Democratic veterans of the Cold War, he began to say Russia had acted without justification; and he ended up pulling the basic line in Washington of support for Georgia against Russia.

Although he has continued criticizing the war against Iraq, the Democratic party candidate has repeatedly stated (in line with certain Pentagon officials) that the real conflict was in Afghanistan and Pakistan, suggesting a shift of anti-terrorist military efforts from Iraq to those countries accused of housing Ben Laden militants. The traditional U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War has been to strongly support so-called "friendly" nations (which frequently are far from democratic). Under Bush this notion was turned into the "axis of evil," and a sort of Hollywood notion of good guys and bad guys. Pakistan has long been on the list of  the "good" or "friendly" nations, in spite of having rather undemocratic regimes and having the atomic bomb...

As Obama approaches power the drift towards the traditional thinking pattern will no doubt continue. If Bush, an arch-conservative, has introduced the most interventionist policies in decades to "save" the very financial interests greatly responsible for the present financial crash, it is reasonable to conclude that once in power Obama will also have to accomodate his more daring reforms to satisfy the demands of the "establishment." Thus, power seduces but more frequently than not ends up turning rebellious reformers into obedient servants.