VOX - The Student Journal of Politics, Economics and Philosophy
TAKING OBAMA AT HIS WORDS By Professor Kenneth Lasson
H
EADS OF STATE CANNOT ALWAYS CONTROL WHAT THEY SET OUT
to do, much less the events and reactions often occasioned by their words and conduct. No better example of this reality is the leader of the Free World, the President of the United States, whose eloquence and actions have been of questionable effect in cooling passions, either domestic or foreign, that motivate violence in the Middle East. As the more mild-mannered among his fellow Americans might say about our First Citizen, he’s enigmatic. Our friends and foes overseas may be more (or less) charitable in their assessments. For many of us on this side of the Pond, taking the measure of Barack Obama can be as mystifying as charting the course of the country’s future. To those on the Right, he’s a control freak with communist leanings; to those on the Left, a cult hero with impeccable credentials, charm, and charisma. But no one knows for certain where he’s coming from, much less the direction where any of us are headed. This is particularly true in the policies he seems to espouse for promoting peace (containing 10
violence?) in the Middle East. Two notable speeches early in his first year in office, one in Cairo and the other in Buchenwald, offer typically confounding contrasts. Both were heartfelt, articulate, and well-reasoned, but they resonated with different meanings for different listeners. (“Government is not reason,” pointed out George Washington, a President no less charismatic. “It is not eloquence. It is force.”)1 In Egypt, Mr. Obama gave a lengthy address at Cairo University that was, at its core, a conciliatory olive branch held out toward Islam. There were some stern comments about freedom of religion for all and the need for women’s rights, but there was little condemnation of terrorism or honor killings, and no mention of Hamas and Iran. Platitudes were earnestly expressed, but prescriptions for reform or honest rebukes for clear violations of human rights were scarce.2 Observers from around the world seemed to agree that Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech would have little impact if it were not followed by action. Israeli reaction at the time was mixed, from an optimistic editorial in Ha’aretz (“the chance for a fresh start was laid out in Cairo yesterday”)3 to the
Issue XII - Summer 2010
disconcerting moral equivalency noted by the Jerusalem Post (“The president juxtaposed the Jewish suffering in the Holocaust to that of the Palestinians since Israel’s creation – something all Israeli Jews find unacceptable”).4
Heads of state cannot always control what they set out to do, much less the events and reactions often occassioned by their words and conduct. A decidedly different note was struck in Germany, where Mr. Obama’s remembrance of the liberation of the notorious Nazi death camp at Buchenwald was both pointed and poignant. “More than half a century later, our grief and our outrage over what happened have not diminished. I will not forget what I’ve seen here today.” He went on to condemn “those who insist that the Holocaust never happened – a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful” – as well as “those who perpetuate every form of intolerance . . . that degrades its victims and diminishes us all.”5 Barack Obama reflected as well on the human capacity for good, the acts of kindness and courage in the midst of horror, the bravery of those who defied and resisted. He remembered the astonishment of the American GIs at finding more than 900 children still alive, the youngest
was just three years old. He recited a verse from a song by inmates at Buchenwald: “...Whatever our fate, we will say yes to life, for the day will come when we are free...in our blood we carry the will to live and in our hearts, in our hearts – faith.”6 “These individuals,” said the President of the United States, “could not have known how the nation of Israel would rise out of the destruction of the Holocaust and the strong, enduring bonds between that great nation and my own.”7 “They could not have known these things,” he said, and his words are worth repeating. “But still surrounded by death they willed themselves to hold fast to life. In their hearts they still had faith that evil would not triumph in the end, that while history is unknowable it arches towards progress, and that the world would one day remember them. And it is now up to us, the living, in our work, wherever we are, to resist injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take, and ensure that those who were lost here did not go in vain. It is up to us to redeem that faith. It is up to us to bear witness; to ensure that the world continues to note what happened here; to remember all those who survived and all those who perished, and to remember them not just as victims, but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed just like us.”8 To be sure, most of us are resolute as to our traditional and con11
VOX - The Student Journal of Politics, Economics and Philosophy
temporary shared values: life (security in our homelands); liberty (especially religious freedom); and the pursuit of happiness (read Peace in Our Time). But the moving rhetoric has been followed by little action. The Obama Administration, which declared its commitment to routing the Taliban in Afghanistan and challenging the nuclear ambitions of Iran, has been unable to contain the runaway leadership of either country. Many of the Americans who voted for or against Obama did so with uncommon passion: “he’d make a great President” or “he’d be a disaster on foreign policy.” In this regard they reflected the media’s pugnacious pundits – from the attack-dog Right, for whom Obama has never done anything good, to the fawning Left, for whom he can do little wrong. Others were somewhat more reserved. There was respect, even grudging if not genuine admiration, for his consistently calm and cool demeanor in the face of furious political attacks, a country engaged in two unwinnable wars, and an economy in dramatic free-fall. But they were also wary of his inexperience and naiveté on foreign policy and, perhaps worse, his failure to grasp the progressively hardening realities of life in the Middle East. Many who were so optimistic about the Oslo Accords fifteen years ago have come painfully to realise that much of the Arab world would like to 12
see Israel annihilated. What was supposed to have been a milestone – the first direct, face-to-face agreement between Israel and political representatives of Palestinians to address and ultimately resolve the outstanding differences between them – disintegrated into yet another protracted intifada. One might think that President Obama has a very selective memory of the years before he assumed office.
In the Summer of 2000, hadn’t significant concessions toward Yasser Arafat been brokered by the US and made by Israel, only to be categorically spurned? In September of 2001, hadn’t 3000 Americans been murdered by fanatical Islamists whose clerics demanded that they “kill the Jews, and those who support them, wherever they are to be found”? In August of 2005, hadn’t every one of the Jewish settlers in ‘occupied’ Gaza been removed – only to
Issue XII - Summer 2010
be followed by four years of incessant rocket fire into southern Israel? Along the way, hadn’t Barack Obama railed against the policies of his predecessor, such as the military surge to contain Iraqi insurgents – only to claim victory in Iraq a few years later based on the success of the same policy? How long will it take our talented President to understand the Realpolitik of the Middle East, where our ostensible allies – Egypt, Jordan, and especially Saudi Arabia – demand ever more concessions from Israel without offering anything tangible in return? There is ample evidence that Barack Obama is an intelligent, charismatic, well-intentioned leader. But “eloquence, at its highest pitch”, as David Hume, the famous 18th
Century Scottish philosopher, pointed out, “leaves little room for reflection, captivating the willing hearers, and subduing their understanding.”9 Whether the President can put the power of his speech and the promise of his eloquence into actual effect – whether whatever he says can be translated into actions that control passions and encourage peace among nations – remains largely to be seen.
Footnotes available online at www.voxjournal.co.uk
____________________________________
Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore, where he specializes in civil liberties and international human rights.