Obama’s 100 days & 100s of Questions about Change

As president Obama’s campaign slogan was “Change”, making judgment about his success during his first one hundred days in office should be based on his success in bringing about change. The main factor in gaining public support for change was the crisis dominating America and the world as a result of mishandling of affairs during the previous administrations. Although his first priority was dealing with economic crisis that needed decisive action, this problem has its roots in much wider problems dominating the world. Before finding real solution to the main problems, any solution for economy would be short term.
The real problems leading to the present crisis can be described in the word “Politics”. This term, having lost its original meaning of well-judged deliberation and rightful management of public affairs, is now interpreted as a trick of gaining control in ruling over people. There are two classes of people who seek government positions in order to gain advantage. First , those who are concerned only about their short sighted policies of achieving immediate interests regardless of what happens to others. Second , the group of clergies whose misunderstandings of God, religion , and the whole being, make them believe that by gaining the control of state can perform their religious duties. The latter group, having strengthened their control over people and enjoyed the tempting taste of power, usually join the former group in oppressing the people.
The American system of government is of the kind that whoever is elected as the president can dominantly preside over the country for at least four years even when public opinion is not behind him.
President Obama’s election is incidentally the result of such circumstances in the absence of which he might not have been able to gain public support.
Now that he with his slogan of change is well received by his own people and the world, the real question is whether he can fulfill his promise of change. The answer to this question is probably known only to those who know about the secrets revealed to him during the handover ceremony by his predecessor. It is probable that at that same moment he finds himself in a position that has to compromise and come to terms with the situation. We saw that during the present economic crisis institutions saved by public money first divided that money between their heads to be questioned only when he was informed. Even then the return of it seems to have been arranged in a way that they would have had their benefit of it.
Of course a good number of people see in him the kind of honesty and integrity that enables him to act differently and press for the real changes needed to save America and even the world from long existing crisis. Such programs of change, in the present circumstances, need the support of all who willingly seek real reforms. If he is not supported by the people and other international figures, he and his hope will melt away in the present system and somehow finish his term(s) in office.
If other political figures in the world show the same reaction as that shown by the regime in Tehran, shouting irredeemability of American policies, the idea of change will certainly fail and the present situation of militarization and endless wars will continue.
However, up to now and during his first hundred days in office, he has maintained his attitude towards change. But if he wants to practically prove his honesty, he ought to be able to provide answers to hundreds of questions related to the policies of super powers. Some of these prevailing questions surround the following issues:
The most destructive problem facing the world is continuation of military confrontations and destructive wars in different parts of the world. Throughout the history human beings have been involved in alot of ruthless wars; but at a time when all are talking of civilization and human rights, how can anyone justify the use of force in solving regional problems? But modernization of wars is a sad proof of the continuation of misuse of power by governments just as the old days.
Surely no war and regional confrontation can persist without the consent of governmental powers. To a lot of people it is a reality that in every regional conflict there is the trace of some super power, trying to maintain their so called interests by selling arms and dominating over the natural resources of regions.
Before the fall of Soviet Union, rivalry between East and West was the cause of wars in different parts of the world ; of course by taking advantage of existing minor problems in every region. And now there is a strong belief that super powers have compromised over their interests in different parts of the world. Sometimes creating enemies in order not to put out the roaring fire of the wars.
There still exists in our memory that after the fall of Soviet Russia the divided countries including the present Russia were not but bankrupts driven into all kinds of problems. Had it not been for the help from the west, the present Russia would not have survived to be as it is. So it would be hard to believe that there is no coordination between them when it comes to international issues.
Still how could American presence in Korean peninsula continue if the problems of North and South Korea were to be solved?! How can The Middle East problems be solved if the easy flow of wealth from this region is to resume?! How could the flow of oil and return of its money through the sale of arms and other old nuclear and nonnuclear facilities be guaranteed, had it not been for the reign of hostile regimes in the region like that of Iran and its neighbors?! There should have existed someone like Sadam Hossein in Iraq that could be manipulated for different aims and finally facilitate the occupation of Iraq. In Africa, the land of president Obama’s ancestors, why are all these bloody wars going on in the regions rich in natural resources?! They are not fighting with bows and arrows anymore! Where do all these weapons come from? Who are behind all these wars? Where are all the cues in those countries planned?!
A good number of such international interventions during the recent times are still remembered: Where and when has any moderate and democratically elected government in such countries been supported and has not been subject to conspiracy? Wasn’t the legitimate government of Dr Mosadegh in Iran overthrown and replaced by a dictatorial regime? Wasn’t the recent Iranian revolution derailed and long Iranian dream of freedom deferred through collaboration with the extremists in order to return dictatorship?! What difference does it make for them for a dictator to have crown on his head or turban?! The only thing matters to them is noninvolvement of people and their intellectuals in country’s affairs so as to facilitate implementation of secret agreements made behind the closed doors. Of course no one should underestimate the role of the people themselves, but when cleverly planned conspiracies take place poor people are left helpless.
Examples of such deals are: All the ups and downs during the occupation of American embassy in Tehran and different stories about the release of the captives and American election, different Iran- gates, the story of Macfarlane, and so on. It was only recently that in his interview, one of the prominent and well informed figures, Dr. Yazdi who was a member of provisional government said that at the time when Americans had the choice of supporting the moderates or the Mollas, they supported the Mollas. They have of course achieved their goals now: the president who wanted to end the war was overthrown for the war to continue for eight years in the interest of the others. And who better than Ayatolla Khamanee could spread enmity across the region and create foes for the country?! Who better than Ahmadinejad can better pave the way for foreign intervention by his sharp but hollow and baseless words?!
Yet, if president Obama is willing to implement his policy of real change, these are some of the fields he can act upon. He must replace the present form of politics with the honesty that people see on his face. Succeeding in doing so in America will enable him to change the path of politics in other parts of the world, creating the required atmosphere to bring constructive changes to the whole world.
This requires a very strong will, determination, and sacrifice that are now beyond perception. But now that such opportunity has lain in the hands of the person whom people find capable, let us ask him to look back and see what has become of the former presidents. Only afew of them still live and their time is up. What remains of everyone as a permanent legacy are their deeds. Great deeds are not the work of any person and not every one finds the opportunity of being capable of bringing big changes. Just look back again to the history of mankind and make a comparison between all is left from the heads and heroes and that of people like Jesus Christ, Moses, and Muhammad who in their then present circumstances called themselves messengers and prophets; and their real impact and influence on the world. Not of course what some of their present pretentious followers claim about them. Is president Barak Hossein Obama prepared to show the will and determination like that of Jesus Christ and accept the possible consequence of being seen hanging on another cross?
in persian