Sunday, June 07, 2009

Words and Deeds

"No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust..."

President Obama said that early in his speech in Cairo. And, of course, therein lies the real problem. Just as it's a ridiculous falsehood that "they hate us for our freedoms", it's equally false to assume that they "hate us for the things we say". It is America's actions in the Middle East and around the world that have gotten us to this point. Sure, terrorism is bad and people who use terror as a political tactic are criminals, etc. etc., but we understand WHY there are people, many of them muslims, who want to attack the United States.

So whether America's leader uses the arrogant, bellicose words of the cowboy in a saloon or the eloquent, poetic words of peace and moderation, it is unrealistic to expect any real change in the world without actual changes in behavior. And that, of course, is a great deal harder than saying the words.

The people of the "muslim world", the population of the middle east and south asia, have a lot of reasons to hate the United States government. The US has not been an honest broker in their legitimate disputes, and they can clearly and without argument identify a series of actions the United States has taken in their region that negatively and measurably impacted their life and well-being. It is a wonderful first step to announce that we have common goals, and that we should pursue them in peace. But you cannot blame them for being skeptical, after all these years, and waiting hopefully for some indication that America as the entity that has destroyed so many lives and families is willing to act with their interests at heart.

America can select what it is she wishes to talk about, but it's imperative that, whatever the topics chosen, she speak with honesty and balance. If the American leadership wants to talk about nuclear proliferation, they must do so honestly, unflinchingly indicting enemy and ally alike, not just Iran and North Korea, but India, Pakistan and Israel also.

If the American leadership chooses to talk about authoritarian government, they must be prepared to address not just nations with whom they have differences, but also nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and even Israeli governance of the occupied territories.

If the American leadership chooses to talk about human rights, they must move forward under already ratified international law and prosecute the torturers in America.

American international credibility is at it's nadir, and the primary reason for that is a combination of American Exceptionalism and American Hypocrisy. When we continue to make demands of some nations we do not make of others, when we speak to how nations of the world should behave and then abandon those behaviors ourselves when they are inconvenient, when we ask governments to respect the rule of law when we neither do so ourselves nor require it of our friends, we hold ourselves up as nothing but a blowhard bully, a toxic combination of empty rhetoric and massive weaponry.

If it is to be an argument about ideals, then American leadership must recognize that it is not an argument to be won with bombs and bombast, but rather by living those ideals at home and abroad, and demonstrating their utility in modern society. If you seek peace, you begin by not engaging in war. If you wish to demand an end to aggression, you first must stop invading. If your goal is to spread human dignity and the rule of law, you must have the courage to release people from custody if you cannot charge them with a crime.

There is much America can do to lead the world into a peaceful and prosperous century, each more simple and obvious than the next, but all requiring a level of political courage not present for many decades. Obama says nice things, but will he have the courage to risk his personal political future and become one of those rare, transcendent global figures, a statesman who changes the status quo, or will soaring rhetoric be followed up with safe, incremental changes in American policy that essentially preserve the current order? I know what I see, and I am not optimistic...

4 Comments:

At 12:36 PM, Anonymous ckc (not kc) said...

You shouldn't be too hard on America - the same exceptionalism and hypocrisy abound among your allies and your opponents (or more particularly among their politicians). Doesn't make the solutions any easier, however. (And you do have the naked power, at the moment.)

 
At 12:45 PM, Blogger mikey said...

Yeah, that's true, but none of those nations seem to think it's incumbent upon them to "take a global leadership role".

I also don't see many of them either wagging a finger at other nations for their "behavior" nor threatening to attack them.

If America is going to assume the mantle of global leader, she will have to earn more credibility or get used to being hated and futile...

 
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous ckc (not kc) said...

Well, some of us have our own "global leadership" (blue beret UN peacekeeping honest broker yada yada) image to uphold - everyone has a cross to bear (glares at New Zealand).

 
At 1:03 PM, Anonymous ckc (not kc) said...

[afterthought]

all in favor of the UN and peace-keeping ... it's the political "hooray for us" twist put on it that I find hard to stomach.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home