Barack Obama – the PR-stunt?
Just a few days ago David over at Dialoginternational put the question out, if the Obama-election would put out the antiamericamism in Europe. He specially has a look at the European (German) left, which seems mostly high on Obamania1. For starters he characterizes the current resentment of American policies rightly:
Yes, there has always been a current of anti-Americanism in Europe, but intensity over the past years had more to do with disastrous policies of the Bush administration than with some innate animosity towards America. Now that the Bush era has come to an end and Americans voted by a large margin for an African-American with progressive policies, will we find a more positive image of America in Germany – even among the German left?
Anti-Americanism?
In my opinion he seems to be confused as to how to judge the skepticism some show towards Obama. Knut Mellenthin is one example and he writes an article entitled “Mit Obama in den Krieg”2 in “Junge Welt” saying that the every single pro-dialog rhetoric Obama used has been washed-out over time transforming him more and more to being like those he rose to replace.
Mit der Behauptung, Obama befürworte den Dialog mit »versöhnbaren Elementen der Taliban«, steht diese Praxis nicht im Einklang. Tatsächlich ist die gewählte Formulierung – er beobachte wohlwollend (»looks favorably«) – ebenso nichtssagend wie der Begriff »versöhnbar« (reconcilable). Das Regime in Kabul versteht darunter Stammeskrieger und Warlords, die »der Gewalt abschwören und die afghanische Verfassung akzeptieren«. Kollaborationswillige also. Versuche dazu hat es schon seit der Invasion im Oktober 2001 gegeben; besonders erfolgreich waren sie letztlich nicht, wie man sieht. Obama hat bisher mit keinem Wort zu erkennen gegeben, daß er auf diesem Gebiet neue Ideen hat.
Und schließlich: Gespräche mit Iran? Obama hat schon zu Beginn seiner Wahlkampagne gemerkt, daß seine Äußerungen, er sei zu einem Treffen mit Präsident Mahmud Ahmadinedschad bereit, ihm politisch geschadet haben. Daraufhin hat er diese Ankündigung schnell bis zur Unkenntlichkeit relativiert.
This practice (mostly: widening the bombing) does not back the assertion, that Obama wants to exercise a dialog with those “reconcilable elements in the Taliban”. Actually the used phrasing – he looks favorably upon – is as unmeaning as the perception “reconcilable”. The regime in Kabul means with it Warlords and clan warriors, that have renunciated violence and accepted the Afghani constitution. Collaborators. Efforts in this direction have been made in the past since the invasion in October 2001; of which not much was achieved, as one can see. Obama didn’t show on this field, that he has new ideas to offer.
And ultimately: Talks with Iran? Obama did realize at the beginning of his campaign that these statements about being prepared to meet with Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, have brought political damage unto him. Thereafter he has changed his announcement out of recognition.
Though i don’t think we can judge an administration before it has practically taken control, i really don’t think the articles David quoted express any “antiamericanism”. Maybe the authors are pessimistic and, yes – maybe a tat too obviously thinking “big business” and the general American public won’t let a peace loving president get elected. But again: Obama could still prove them all wrong. I sure hope he does.
Transparency
What we can judge on though is his choice of secretaries, delegates and transition advisors. To start off with a positive nuance: The Obama campaign has created a site called change.gov where news about the transition period is posted regularly. I think this sort of direct and transparent act is very healthy and could change the way people – here specially American people – trust rather than mistrust the future administration. Just yesterday Obama gave his first weekly video address from his “office of the president-elect” in which in the wake of the G20 summit Obama urges congress to pass an “immediate plan to give the economy the boost it needs” he would make it his “first order of business” when sworn in. I don’t know what sort of plan Obama has in mind – in my opinion ‘boosting’ the economy without changing that which fails in it isn’t really effective – but the general notion of transparency seems to be o.k.. This is good news for Americans!
Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff
On the other hand the nomination of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff has confused many. Just as a side note3 his father lives in Israel and was a member in the Israeli terror organization Irgun, that was jointly responsible for forced and ’suggested’4 displacement in Palestine. Of course Rahm isn’t responsible for what his father did, but maybe someone was expecting him to distance himself from that sort of thing..
In an apparent move to make things more clear Rahm’s father Benjamin M. Emanuel has given the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv an interview in which he is stated to have said:
Obviously he’ll [Rahm Emanuel] influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.
The organisation “American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee” (ADC) has reacted in an interesting way by writing to Mr. Emanuel himself and protesting against this sort of talk publicly5. The second act wouldn’t have been noted, were it not for Rahm Emanuel who responded by calling the organisation by phone and “apologizing” for what his father said. My problem with this is: Why should he apologize for something his father said? By doing so he has washed-out the really dangerous thing his father said (also), which consists in him influencing the president to being pro-Israel! The ADC seems happy about his meaningless apology:
In the phone call, Congressman Emanuel said, “From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family.” During the phone call, Emanuel added, it is unacceptable to make remarks such as these against any ethnic or religious group.
ADC President Mary Rose Oakar said, “We cannot allow Arabs and Muslims to be portrayed in these unacceptable terms. I welcome Rahm’s apology and his pledge to meet with our Community. I also thank our members and friends who responded who expressed concern about this matter.”
They totally missed the point!
More troops, more wars — now?
Kyle Atwell over at Atlantic Review reports that the Obama administration would ask for more European contribution in war supplies for the war in Afghanistan and asks whether the people in Europe who supported Obama were aware of his intention to intensify “Western efforts”6 there. The whole article is entitled “What will Britain do when Obama asks for more troops in Afghanistan?”:
I am curious if the majority of Brits and others across Europe who supported Obama were aware of his intention to intensify Western efforts in Afghanistan, and what that might mean for them? It will be interesting to see how the European public responds when these requests inevitably begin to arrive from the iconic new American president.
Actually, i hope they do react the same way if they were asked by any other president/clown: say no. It has been clear that more war in Afghanistan by no means produces more peace or even stability in that country. Yet again, Obama – the black president – could be used as a walking advertisement by those in Germany and other European countries who for whatever reason would like to send troops anywhere. “Look guys, we’re simply following this crowd-magnet. You love him, don’t you?
It’s the same with the expectation towards the middle east’s perception of Obama. Because he’s black – this is how the notion goes – he will be perceived differently by Arabs; nevermind is actual policies! This could work for some time, but noway will it work, if the people see his troops bombing and killing their own people..
Obama and his mission of change
It’s not the color of his skin, it’s the real-life policies that will define the next president of the United States. Bush’s problem wasn’t his complexion, but his stupidity combined by a warmongering and anti-human policy. The part of the world that has been suffering under American-led wars will not like America or stop disliking it again, unless the America they know adapts a kind of change they can benefit from, a change in view about human rights of non-Americans, a change in view of how America “fights” for world domination7 and a change of how the US “fights” for it’s interests – without having to resort to violence. That’s the kind of change that could change the way a whole generation has been experiencing.
Here are some suggestions:
- Close Guantanamo and work towards apologizing to and compensating all who suffered within it and within any illegal or extralegal confinement by the USA.
- Bring those responsible for war-crimes to justice. This would include retroactively joining the Hague International Court of Justice and delivering all and every single one who is asked for.
- Adapt a dialog-based policy, where the ultimate goal is to achieve results by negotiations.
- Ultimately reconsider every single military intervention and reducing them to those which are aimed at directly defending the USA.
After that8, let’s talk about antiamericanism!
- everybody seems to have forgotten this term[↩]
- With Obama into War[↩]
- admittedly it has been noted every time Emanuel has been mentioned making the key note every body is talking about..[↩]
- as in: you can leave or we can murder you and your family[↩]
- via[↩]
- may i translate: “western efforts” seems to mean “war” nowadays[↩]
- being better is o.k., literally beating every body else is not o.k.![↩]
- and i really don’t mean to postpone any talks about antiamerican vandalism, aggression etc.. , it’s just a phrasing i use[↩]
Verwandte Beiträge
Tags: Afghanistan, antiamericanism, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Gewalt, guantanamo, Israel, Krieg, muslims, palestine, peace, Politik, Rahm Emanuel, USA, War
Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS-Feed für Kommentare zu diesem Beitrag. TrackBack URI
By Basel Teebi, 17. November 2008 @ 01:53
Well thought out piece. I have a few thoughts:
- Emanuel has no business, or in deed any interest, in denying the intention towards a pro-Israeli stance. This has long been the stance of the U.S., and it is one that will only strengthen should the Likud party regain power in Israel. Moreover, he is only following Obama’s example by apologizing for something another said- Reverend Wright, anybody?
-Obama will make it his business to renew efforts in Afghanistan for the simple reason that Americans demand closure or, to be blunt, vengeance. His involving of other nations, from his point of view, may or may not be necessary but it could ensure success. Race is not the issue here, however, as Europeans might follow on a platform of meeting international terrorism head-on. The Arabs, well, might do so as to distance themselves from fundementalism…
-Obama has publically stated that he might use his executive powers to give due process to all Guantanamo detainees, and he has also hinted that he wants it closed. Whether he follows up on that is another story
By David, 17. November 2008 @ 19:40
Omar,
Barack Obama was on national television last night and repeated that he would shut down Guantanamo and end the practice of torture for good (video at CBS News). Obama will not take office until Jan. 20, 2009, so it bothers me that some on the German left are already calling him a warmonger – no different from George W. Bush.
In my blog post I cited Marina Achenbach’s piece in Freitag, because she acknowledge the grassroots movement that won the election last week. There were literally over a million of us who knocked on doors, made thousands of phone calls, wrote letters and op/ed pieces for newspapers, and, yes, even wrote on blogs. Our opponents once again tried to use fear – painting our candidate as a Marxist Muslim with ties to terrorism – to sway the voters, but this time they fell far short. We were committed to Barack Obama because of his opposition to the Iraq War. Now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and we will work with the Obama administration in uniting the country around a progressive agenda for helping average Americans through this difficult period. We welcome any support from our friends in Europe; it is too bad that there are some on the German left who continue to demonize America and refuse to acknowledge what we have been able to achieve.
By Omar, 17. November 2008 @ 19:59
@Basel: Emanuel only apologized – as i understand it – because the ADC complained. In my opinion they complained for the wrong reasons..
@David: i do believe that Obama will in fact close down Guantanamo. To ensure a Guantanamo-free future, he should strive to acknowledge the Hague international court and get investigations into the whole extralegal renditions thingie..
I do acknowledge the efforts done by the Obama supporters and think that it was some great victory for them and hopefully also for the US. We already once had a discussion about “why Obama and not – say – Ron Raul”. I think we mostly differ in the perspective. I’m mostly interested in the foreign policies of the future president and hope for a more just and less rampaging USA, while you (and other Americans for sure) are more concerned about the national policies (i.e. financing the next meal, healthcare etc..).
Thanks for your views anyway.