Confronting longstanding prejudices held by Islamic extremists, President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world was a testament to Lord Lytton’s age-old adage that “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

But this was no rhetorical anomaly.

With fair-minded words that consistently penetrate cultural and religious divides — both in and out of America — Obama is making his mark in history as a modern diplomat striving to mend broken international ties… and perhaps make new ones.

In the first six months of his presidency, Obama’s global agenda has been characterized by open communication and diplomatic outreach to friends and foes.

Whether he is listening at the G-20 in London or conversing in Cairo, Obama has spent the last six months improving America’s image abroad.

However, Obama’s doctrine of diplomacy has quite a few obstacles to overcome — the first being North Korea.

Obama has made nuclear nonproliferation a top priority for his presidency, and his speech in Prague this past April is an excellent example. But however good his intentions are, the prospect of a nuclear arms race in Asia threatens this goal, and perhaps even the effectiveness of his assertive rhetoric.

With this in mind, political progressives argue that the United States should cease making meaningless threats of further economic sanctions in addition to those already imposed on North Korea. This economic coercion, they argue, will give America little leverage over a country with which they have virtually no trade relations with.

On the other side of the world, an extremely influential China has yet to impose harsh sanctions on North Korea and utilize its position as the country’s biggest trading partner to pressure Kim Jon-Il.

Therefore, many stress that the President’s chances of success will be contingent on  incorporating the Chinese, who indisputably have the most political and economic sway over their neighboring country.

Another obstacle to Obama’s doctrine of diplomacy is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where compromise between Arabs and Israelis is a crucial part of stabilizing Middle East politics.

Here, the President must be careful not to overstep his bounds, let alone carry the diplomatic burden of an Arab-Israeli peace agreement by himself.

Despite rocky relations with Iran and its current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,  some suggest Obama must recognize its regional influence and role in Middle Eastern mediation.

All these diplomatic dilemmas attest to the fact America is no longer the only big dog on the block; new world powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and Iran, are staking their claims in regional dominance.

Thankfully, the Obama Doctrine is well suited to this reality; diplomacy, after all, will be essential in maintaining America’s global prominence.

However, Obama has also indicated that America will resort to force — not rhetoric — when it is warranted; Take, for instance, the rescue of American Capt. Richard Phillips. Confronted with the 21st century reality of high-tech piracy on the high seas, Obama asserted the strength of the American military without hesitation and showed both enemies and allies he would not shrink from challenges, or tolerate challengers.

The rescue, more than anything else, exemplified the Obama Doctrine’s contingency plan for when diplomacy fails to bring positive results.  So yes, “the pen” may at times be “mightier than the sword,” but when one’s pen runs out of ink it is in the best interests of the country to always have a sword on hand.

If and when Obama’s diplomatic gestures fail, all Americans can be thankful that their young and pragmatic leader will not likely fail to consider other avenues to victory and security. But  for now, it is safe to say that he is sticking to diplomacy.

Popularity: 1% [?]