President Barack
Obama’s speech is a fascinating document. The
theme is this: absolutely nothing can go wrong with political change in
the Middle East and that the United States helps moderate forces,
defined as anyone who isn't actively trying to kill Americans. The fact
that some to many of those revolutionary forces favor killing Americans
is outside his purview. And the fact that his policy has supported
militantly anti-democratic groups far more than the (far weaker)
moderate ones is airbrushed away.
That’s
not to say there weren’t good-sounding formulations in his
speech. Either due to a learning process, the impact of events,
or--most likely--the immediacy of an American presidential election to
whose voters he is actually addressing himself—you decide—Obama hit some
of the right notes also. The problem is the isolation of this soaring
rhetoric from his actual policies. That's what's important here, not the
discussion about the video and its relationship to the rioting which
has drawn literally all of the attention in analyzing the speech.
By
the way, what’s really amazing, but no one has noted, is that almost
every word of the speech could have been given by President George W.
Bush. Obama has totally accepted the dangerous "neo-conservative"
approach to the region despite the fact that this label makes his
supporters foam at the mouth.
In
basic terms, Obama urged the world to support the good people and not
the bad people. Why should the U.S. ambassador to Libya be killed? After
all, Obama claims, “He supported the birth of a new democracy” and was
allegedly in Benghazi to review plans for a new cultural center and a
modernized hospital. “Chris was killed in the city he helped to save,”
said the president. Yet the most powerful force in the Middle East views
his actions not as saving the city but as delivering it to U.S.
control.
The
anti-American riots were “an assault on the very ideals upon which the
United Nations was founded – the notion that people can resolve their
differences peacefully; that diplomacy can
take the place of war; and that in an interdependent world, all of us
have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our
citizens….Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has
no place among our United Nations.”
That
passage is unintentionally funny. After all, for decades violence and
intolerance has been central at the UN and this will continue to be
true. Indeed, the Obama Administration has supported many of these
forces of violence and intolerance or, in other places, not stood up to
them. After all, the minister of railroads in Pakistan, a country which
has received billions in aid by the Obama Administration, has just
offered a reward for murdering an American citizen without fear of any
consequences for his regime. Amidst a thousand other examples that gives
a
sense of the reality of the contemporary situation compared to Obama's
rhetoric.
Obama
says that the United States “has supported the forces of change” in the
Arab Spring. But he does not evaluate these forces. The old regimes
were tyrannical but what will replace them? Well, to prove he doesn’t
comprehend there is a serious battle within the “forces of change” Obama
could actually say:
“….We
again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so
that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can
begin.”
A
new dawn? Almost a century ago, revolutionaries were overthrowing the
czar, widely viewed in the West as the world’s worst tyrant, and it was
assumed that whatever happened would mark the beginning of a new dawn.
Thirty years ago, those assumptions were repeated with Iran, where the
world's worst tyrant was supposedly being overthrown and the result had
to be a "new dawn." Each of these events generated massive sufferings
and several wars.
The
implication is that Obama believes that all change is good; that
nothing can be worse in the region. This is a very dangerous conclusion,
especially about the Middle East. It is not a strategy but merely a
tossing of the dice in a casino where the dice are very crooked indeed.
Going
all Abe Lincoln, Obama continued, “I am convinced that ultimately
government of the people, by the people and for the people is more
likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual
opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.” Well,
perhaps, but what does that have to do with the actual existing
governments? These words are a typical Western view that materialistic
interests must triumph rather than taking into account the power of
ideology and the things regimes need to do to stay in power. In 1979,
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's revolution said that
Western observers thought the upheaval in his country was about the
price of watermelons--that is, about how best to achieve prosperity--and
that this was ridiculous. One-third of a century later, the Iranian
regime is still in power and following Khomeini's
radical approach. Why should we not expect the same to be true in Egypt
and perhaps soon in Syria?
Indeed,
his whole line in the speech parallels the view of U.S. leaders that if
Yasir Arafat and the PLO only be given their own entity and offered
their own state, turned into responsible politicians who have to fix
potholes and provide jobs, there would be peace and stability in the
Middle East. The formula he offers has never worked anywhere in the
region.
Whatever
he truly believes, Obama’s publicly stated assumption is based on the
wishful thinkings of a community organizer rather than the hardheaded
evaluations of a statesman:
“Those
in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In
hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around
perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the
painstaking work of reform.”
You
mean like his policy of mobilizing people to hate the rich? But why
shouldn’t they crack down and rally the people against perceived
enemies, acting like he does but with the added violence and intolerance
of those political cultures? Why does his thinking provide no
possibility of that happening? Who is going to make them "resist the
temptation" to be aggressive if there is no strong superpower that is
going to hold them to account?
After
all, this is a president who can praise the new Muslim Brotherhood
leaders in Tunisia and Egypt; fall in love with the repressive,
hate-inciting regime in Turkey, follow a policy greatly strengthening
the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, and ignore the likelihood that he’s
promoting the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Syria, and then say:
“It
is time to marginalize those who even when not resorting to
violence–use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central
principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes
excuses, for those who resort to violence.”
"Marginalize"? He has brought them to center stage. He explains:
“Burning
an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a
restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won’t
create a single job.” Of course, that’s the whole point. A leader who
cannot bring economic recovery to his country after four years in
office, for example, finds demagoguery to be a very useful alternative.
That is all the more true in the Middle East. Burning an American flag
indoctrinates a child into certain beliefs; smashing apart a restaurant
makes people who have no jobs feel good.
At times, Obama’s
statements read so differently in the Middle East that it is laughable:
“In
less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more
change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence.
Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to
improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay
relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.”
Well,
no, in fact the smart extremists understand that they found a useful
tactic for seizing power, and with the help of the United States! They
want to go step by step now to build dictatorships and wipe out everyone
they don’t like at home and abroad. The ‘’less smart”
extremists are too impatient, but their very impatience pressures their
colleagues to go further and faster.
-----------------------
We
need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA
Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of
IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC,
116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 30,056 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
If
one listened to Obama’s speech, one would think that this was the man
who gave strong support to the opposition in Iran; the moderate
democratic forces struggling in Lebanon and Egypt (most U.S.-backed
programs to help organize politically in Egypt went to the Muslim
Brotherhood); and backed those fighting for a
Syria that isn’t an Islamist dictatorship.
Not
at all. He has done virtually nothing for those forces. Nor has his
government really done anything material to protect the rights of women
and Christians in the Middle East. When he says, “Those are the men and
women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support,”
it has no relationship with reality.
For example, Obama said:
“Together,
we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision – a
Syria that is united and inclusive; where children
don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in
how they are governed – Sunnis and Alawites; Kurds and Christians. That
is what America stands for; that is the outcome that we will work for….”
Meanwhile,
his government is overseeing programs that distribute arms to either
the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists. It organized a Syrian
opposition council dominated by the Brotherhood. It is guaranteeing a
Syria in which Alawites and Christians will be massacred; in which Kurds
will face an assault on their region; and which will be neither united,
inclusive, or non-scary for children.
As
I have said, there are many fine sentiments expressed on
Iran, Israel-Palestinian issues, economic development, minority rights,
condemning insults to all religions equally, and defending America’s
freedom of speech. Yet these points have no relationship to do with what
this president has actually done in the Middle East.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
--
No comments:
Post a Comment