It's happening...
I suppose I would've seemed a killjoy back in november if I'd suggested that maybe we should hold off the party until after Obama has succeeded in making the world a better place, rather than pre-emptively. But of course it was never going to be so simple.
I suppose I would've seemed a killjoy back in november if I'd suggested that maybe we should hold off the party until after Obama has succeeded in making the world a better place, rather than pre-emptively. But of course it was never going to be so simple.
You've probably seen this touching little video by now. Ostensibly to mark the occasion of Nawruz, Iranian new year, Obama sends a special message to the peoples of the Middle-east & with a special mention in there for "the leaders of Iran" who should pay particularly close attention, if they know what's good for them.In the short segment he explains how Iranians (or just their leaders? I'm not too sure) "have a choice" - they have a right to take their rightful place in the international world order, but with that right comes real responsibility (rings a bell... Oh I know, it's a line from Spiderman).
I can only imagine that this video must have left its target audience intensely bemused. I certainly was. I mean, what exactly are they supposed to do now? Is this really how international politics works?
No, of course it's not. What Obama is saying and the way he is saying it might seem to be a break with continuity as far as the face of American foreign policy goes, but other, arguably more substantial aspects of it, don't seem to be changing too rapidly at all.
It doesn't seem as if the US is about to radically rethink its disproportionate support (both political & military) for the State of Israel, making it a clear and persistent security threat in the region which the people of Iran and all its neighbours have an obvious reason to be very concerned about. A lesser known American-sponsored threat to the country are the People's Mujahedin, a militant islamic organisation which aims to overthrow the Iranian government, explains Mohsen Rezai in his editorial (of which I've only a paper copy, forgive lack of reference).
Then there's the economic sanctions, which Obama decided not to lift. This might just have some bearing on the everyday lives of Iranians as well, given how it in no small way contributes to stunting the development of the country & its economy. In fact he's even contemplating tightening them. (So hardly surprising to learn that Ali Khamenei should react by asking "what change?", more on his response over here.)
But Obama didn't mention any of this in his little video greeting card. Instead of confronting the conditions which breed terrorism, he contents himself with asking them nicely to stop it. If this method doesn't work, when America finally loses patience, those Iranians won't be able to say they were not warned!
In Turkey, as all across Europe, over the past few days Obama has been welcomed with open arms, greeted with cheers and euphoria. He may be black, a democrat, and below the age of 60 but he is above all the President of the United States. There seems to be a generalised case of amnesia on this. I've just started reading "Dreams from my Father", the earlier of his autobiographies. I'm willing to believe he's a thoroughly nice person with some really commendable ideas. But Obama is not american politics. He will not and cannot change the nature of how power works in the world, and that's the fundamental problem. No matter how noble his intentions he is subject to the formidable range of pressures & influences of those in the world who have power and capital, but don't need to worry about votes or opinion polls.
So why do people seem to think he can or will? The way Obama is being received across the world makes me so uneasy because it's as if he is infallible, and he seems to have procured American policy a new legitimacy which it has done nothing yet to deserve, as far as I can see.
And it's not just naive, it's dangeous, as I wrote earlier in the month. Obama may have a heart of gold but like all politicians he should be constantly under the hammer and above all not given the benefit of the doubt. If anything, those of us who belong the Tony Benn anti-war school of thought should see him as more dangerous than his predecessor rather than less. Because George Bush could never have gotten away with starting another war after Iraq. But Obama CAN. He certainly has never had the courage to categorically rule out a military intervention, as Roger Cohen points out.
If in five years the world is a safer, fairer and more peaceful place, I will be the first one at the party, eating my words with relish and toasting to change.
I can only imagine that this video must have left its target audience intensely bemused. I certainly was. I mean, what exactly are they supposed to do now? Is this really how international politics works?
No, of course it's not. What Obama is saying and the way he is saying it might seem to be a break with continuity as far as the face of American foreign policy goes, but other, arguably more substantial aspects of it, don't seem to be changing too rapidly at all.
It doesn't seem as if the US is about to radically rethink its disproportionate support (both political & military) for the State of Israel, making it a clear and persistent security threat in the region which the people of Iran and all its neighbours have an obvious reason to be very concerned about. A lesser known American-sponsored threat to the country are the People's Mujahedin, a militant islamic organisation which aims to overthrow the Iranian government, explains Mohsen Rezai in his editorial (of which I've only a paper copy, forgive lack of reference).
Then there's the economic sanctions, which Obama decided not to lift. This might just have some bearing on the everyday lives of Iranians as well, given how it in no small way contributes to stunting the development of the country & its economy. In fact he's even contemplating tightening them. (So hardly surprising to learn that Ali Khamenei should react by asking "what change?", more on his response over here.)
But Obama didn't mention any of this in his little video greeting card. Instead of confronting the conditions which breed terrorism, he contents himself with asking them nicely to stop it. If this method doesn't work, when America finally loses patience, those Iranians won't be able to say they were not warned!
In Turkey, as all across Europe, over the past few days Obama has been welcomed with open arms, greeted with cheers and euphoria. He may be black, a democrat, and below the age of 60 but he is above all the President of the United States. There seems to be a generalised case of amnesia on this. I've just started reading "Dreams from my Father", the earlier of his autobiographies. I'm willing to believe he's a thoroughly nice person with some really commendable ideas. But Obama is not american politics. He will not and cannot change the nature of how power works in the world, and that's the fundamental problem. No matter how noble his intentions he is subject to the formidable range of pressures & influences of those in the world who have power and capital, but don't need to worry about votes or opinion polls.
So why do people seem to think he can or will? The way Obama is being received across the world makes me so uneasy because it's as if he is infallible, and he seems to have procured American policy a new legitimacy which it has done nothing yet to deserve, as far as I can see.
And it's not just naive, it's dangeous, as I wrote earlier in the month. Obama may have a heart of gold but like all politicians he should be constantly under the hammer and above all not given the benefit of the doubt. If anything, those of us who belong the Tony Benn anti-war school of thought should see him as more dangerous than his predecessor rather than less. Because George Bush could never have gotten away with starting another war after Iraq. But Obama CAN. He certainly has never had the courage to categorically rule out a military intervention, as Roger Cohen points out.
If in five years the world is a safer, fairer and more peaceful place, I will be the first one at the party, eating my words with relish and toasting to change.
3 comments:
Ok, you can be cynical about this, but Obama has begun to make substantial changes that are rolling back the inhumanity and dangerous arrogance of the Bush years. His views on abortion, human rights, torture and health care have isolated the religious and political right at home, and his change of tone (not much, but it's something) over nuclear arms, Iraq, Iran and Cuba open the door to a fresh start in relations with the restr of us.
I agree with what you say about Obama's influence on the realities of power politics. Though I'm not sure I'd say he's providing US policy with a new legitimacy, the perceived break from the aggressive foreign policy of old does seem to be fooling many media outlets and analysts.
However you have to question just what else he can do in relation to Iran. You mention the economic sanctions, which I agree are placing a great burden on what is ostensibly a democratic state. Nevertheless though, it is a democratic state led by a leader who chooses to act an aggressive and inflammatory manner to the media and public. Though he may not have called for Israel to be wiped off the map as widely claimed, Ahmadinejad continues to be hostile to a neighbouring sovereign state. I do not particularly like Ahmadinejad but at the same time protests like those at the UN Racism conference are just as deplorable. The question is really what can Obama do to ensure that Iran and Israel to not come into conflict with each other. After all, he can not support Iran, what with Ahmadinejad's media history and the sizeable Jewish lobby in the US. If Khatami were still in power, things may well be different but unfortunately he is not.
I'd give Obama a couple of years before passing any judgement; we should then be able to see if his liberal approach has actually had any impact on US foreign policy.
Hi Phil, thanks for those points, good to see you here :)
I think you're right about the limited options when it comes to Iran, however I think the kind of constraints he faces in the form of the Jewish lobby and conservative views are exactly the reason why I have difficulty being wildly optimistic about the outcome, at least in the foreseeable future. And the attitudes of the leaders of Iran I think are symptomatic of the deep historical divisions, by now firmly entrenched, in the region - to do with the way in which Israel was founded and all that has happened since. Of course, I don't think anyone could solve these overnight, especially not in a way that would please all parties.
I'm certainly in favour of waiting a few years to pass a verdict, unlike the media who pass a new one everyday. I believe currently they're busy celebrating 100 days of Obama in power, in a post-mortem fashion which strikes me as somewhat absurd. But I suppose in these uncertain times of crunches & pirates, people look to a leader (read saviour) in the hope that he'll deliver. Fingers crossed!
Post a Comment