U.S. President Obama’s 2010 speech at the UN’s annual opening lacked tangible proposals. For example, he urged progress on the Middle East peace talks, but proffered no proposal. He said Africa could be prosperous agriculturally, but gave no proposal for how. He claimed that corruption in governments of developing countries is a problem, but offered no solution. Pointing to corruption in general diffuses responsibility so talking about it does not shame anyone into making hard choices. Such platitudes belied the president's claim to being an advocate of real change.
The substance of the platitudes rested on the then-current paradigm of international political economy rather than moved over onto an alternative. For example, he could have proposed a Middle East Federation or trading agreement. He could also have announced that the U.S. would no longer give any foreign aid to A.U. states that are riveted with corruption. He could have urged African leaders to cede more governmental sovereignty to the African Union, which in turn could have been given the power to act as a check on government corruption at the state level.
Additionally, Obama could have gone beyond citing his efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation to announce that the U.S. would join the ten countries that have created a movement with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons completely. Meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, the ten countries launched the new initiative to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. Foreign ministers, led by Japan and Australia, hoped to bring new life to efforts for nonproliferation and disarmament. Their mission statement said: “The only guarantee against the use and threat of nuclear weapons is their total elimination.”[1] This would indeed be real change. In contrast, Obama said only that his goal was securing loose nuclear material around the world in four years.
The substance of the platitudes rested on the then-current paradigm of international political economy rather than moved over onto an alternative. For example, he could have proposed a Middle East Federation or trading agreement. He could also have announced that the U.S. would no longer give any foreign aid to A.U. states that are riveted with corruption. He could have urged African leaders to cede more governmental sovereignty to the African Union, which in turn could have been given the power to act as a check on government corruption at the state level.
Additionally, Obama could have gone beyond citing his efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation to announce that the U.S. would join the ten countries that have created a movement with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons completely. Meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, the ten countries launched the new initiative to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. Foreign ministers, led by Japan and Australia, hoped to bring new life to efforts for nonproliferation and disarmament. Their mission statement said: “The only guarantee against the use and threat of nuclear weapons is their total elimination.”[1] This would indeed be real change. In contrast, Obama said only that his goal was securing loose nuclear material around the world in four years.
In short, real change goes beyond politics as usual and platitudes. It goes beyond incrementalism to proffer systemic change. Refusing to challenge the status quo intellectually or take on its power not only restricts a leader's ability to lead, but also eliminates real change as even an option.
See: The Essence of Leadership: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, by Skip Worden, Ph.D. Available at Amazon.
See: The Essence of Leadership: A Cross-Cultural Comparison, by Skip Worden, Ph.D. Available at Amazon.
1. Catherine Bolsover, “Germany Joins New International Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament,” Deutsche Welle, September 23, 2010.
