Turning Iraq into a democracy that would serve as a model for the rest of the region was one of the main arguments that the Bush Administration employed to justify its invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The ‘democracy-building’ argument began to be repeated ad infinitum as the U.S.-led occupation failed to discover any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – the other main argument that had been used to justify Iraqi invasion.
Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change We Can Believe In” was music to the ears of disillusioned Americans in the wake of the Bush presidency. The rest of the world was both wary of and hopeful for the promise of ‘Change’ that had ushered in the first ever African-American president. Slightly less than two years into his presidency, critics are wondering if the promise of ‘change’ is old wine in new bottles or if the distinctive (from Bush) image that Obama is trying to carve out for himself is really something different and more importantly, substantive. Thus far while directives to shut down Guantánamo Bay or professed goals of a world free of nuclear weapons are noble and radical departures (‘change’) from the aspirations of his predecessor, the fact remains that the President’s own aspirations are beginning to sound a bit hollow: with no clear or well thought of game plan, Obama’s pledges leave unresolved complex problems.
The dawn of the 21stcentury witnessed the renewal of global efforts at disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Many arms control initiatives have been formulated to secure the world from the catastrophic consequences of weapons of mass destruction.
