Tweet
DON'T BE SO SENSITIVE, MR. PRESIDENT
by Christopher Hitchens
Slate Magazine
April 13, 2009 Monday
President Barack Obama's visit to Europe afforded us an opportunity to
gauge the strengths and weaknesses of his style in operation. And, even
though he has almost attained the Holy Grail of public relations-in
other words, he is practically at that ineffable and serene point
where he gets good press for getting good press-there may come a time
when even his trans-Atlantic admirers will have to take a second look.
His speech in Strasbourg, France, was much too long, given the youth
of the audience and the way in which presidential sonorousness ate
into the time that was to be allowed for questions, but its aim of
changing the American tone was largely successful. I thought that the
best moment was when he focused on the German and French citizens who
had perished in the World Trade Center. George W. Bush always spoke
as if the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, were an attack on the United
States only and drew the corollary in his rhetoric that you are either
"with" the United States or with the "terrists" (as he always seemed to
think they were called). By underlining the losses suffered by other
countries, not only did Obama redress this imbalance, he also gently
but firmly reminded Europeans that this was and is their struggle, too.
One would have liked a bit more of this combination and perhaps
very slightly less willingness to make disclaimers about American
power. It's absurd to act as if, at NATO and G20 meetings, the
United States is just another modest member. In the case of NATO,
it is at least "first among equals," or primus inter pares, in that
its military strength is greater than that of all the other members
of the alliance combined. In the case of the world's economic powers,
a disproportionate share of the blame for the current crisis lies with
America and so does a comparably vast element of the chance that the
decline can be reversed. It is obviously not a moment to strut around
impersonating a hyperpower, but that doesn't mean that Madeleine
Albright's injunction about the United States being a "necessary"
power can be disowned, either.
The limitations of the Obama manner were exposed in his address
to the Turkish parliament and his press conference with the
Turkish leadership. The president did not take the opportunity to
reiterate his principled stand on the Armenian genocide that we
are commemorating this month and took refuge in platitudes about
healing and negotiation. It's not as if the Turks don't know what he
thinks, so it's difficult to see the value of undue reticence. And
it's hardly an accident that, in all successful attempts at settling
accounts with the past in other nations, the word reconciliation has
invariably been preceded by the word truth. The first duty is to stop
lying. Only then can any genuine attempt at settlement get under way.
It was also somewhat naive of Obama to deny that the United States is
"or ever will be" at war with Islam. Of course, one cannot exactly make
war on a faith, most especially a faith that is currently undergoing
a civil war within itself, in which Turkey has several times been
attacked by Bin Ladenist forces. But twice in the past, jihad has
been officially proclaimed from Turkey's capital. It was in the
name of the Quran that the piratical Ottoman provinces known as the
Barbary States took hundreds of thousands of American and European
voyagers into slavery in the 18th century, until Thomas Jefferson
dispatched the fleet and the Marines to put down the trade, and it
was from Constantinople that the Ottoman military alliance with German
imperialism in 1914 was proclaimed as a holy war binding on all good
Muslims. In other words, what one really wants is an assurance that
Islam is not, nor ever will be, at war (again) with the United States.
That Obama is confused about this, and also slightly weak,
is demonstrated by his earlier attempt at quiet diplomacy, or
constructive engagement, or whatever we agree to call it, with
Iran. He sent a message to "the people and leaders of Iran" on the
occasion of Nowruz, or New Year-a day that he may or may not have
known is slightly frowned upon by the Islamic authorities, because
it involves fire ceremonies and other celebrations that predate the
Muslim conquest of Persia. Any offense they might have taken on that
score must have been mollified when the president twice referred to
the country as "the Islamic Republic of Iran," as in, "The United
States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place
in the community of nations."
Does this boilerplate goodwill represent anything true? In order for
the great and civilized nation of Persia to take its rightful place
in the community of nations, it would have to be able to demonstrate
that its leadership was freely chosen by its own people and that it
was willing to abide by agreements and undertakings (on nontrifling
matters such as nuclear proliferation) that it had solemnly signed. The
mullahs rule Iran on the basis of a Khomeini-ite dogma known as the
veliyate faqui, which makes them the owners and "guardians" of all
the country's citizens. And they have been covertly seeking enriched
uranium of the sort not required for a civilian nuclear program,
while never ceasing to proclaim the imminent and apocalyptic return
of the 12th or "hidden" imam. In other words, in order to claim its
"rightful place" in any recognizable community of nations, Iran would
in effect have to cease to be an Islamic republic.
Meanwhile, the theocratic regime has several times exerted its power to
arrest and imprison Iranian-Americans for "offenses" that would not be
crimes in any civilized country. The most recent such outrage is the
imprisonment of journalist Roxana Saberi, framed for allegedly buying
a bottle of wine. We should hear more from the White House about her
case and less about the sensitivities of her jailers. Some differences
cannot be split. Many conflicts are real and do not arise from mere
cultural misunderstandings. Obama must learn this or be taught it,
whichever comes sooner.
by Christopher Hitchens
Slate Magazine
April 13, 2009 Monday
President Barack Obama's visit to Europe afforded us an opportunity to
gauge the strengths and weaknesses of his style in operation. And, even
though he has almost attained the Holy Grail of public relations-in
other words, he is practically at that ineffable and serene point
where he gets good press for getting good press-there may come a time
when even his trans-Atlantic admirers will have to take a second look.
His speech in Strasbourg, France, was much too long, given the youth
of the audience and the way in which presidential sonorousness ate
into the time that was to be allowed for questions, but its aim of
changing the American tone was largely successful. I thought that the
best moment was when he focused on the German and French citizens who
had perished in the World Trade Center. George W. Bush always spoke
as if the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, were an attack on the United
States only and drew the corollary in his rhetoric that you are either
"with" the United States or with the "terrists" (as he always seemed to
think they were called). By underlining the losses suffered by other
countries, not only did Obama redress this imbalance, he also gently
but firmly reminded Europeans that this was and is their struggle, too.
One would have liked a bit more of this combination and perhaps
very slightly less willingness to make disclaimers about American
power. It's absurd to act as if, at NATO and G20 meetings, the
United States is just another modest member. In the case of NATO,
it is at least "first among equals," or primus inter pares, in that
its military strength is greater than that of all the other members
of the alliance combined. In the case of the world's economic powers,
a disproportionate share of the blame for the current crisis lies with
America and so does a comparably vast element of the chance that the
decline can be reversed. It is obviously not a moment to strut around
impersonating a hyperpower, but that doesn't mean that Madeleine
Albright's injunction about the United States being a "necessary"
power can be disowned, either.
The limitations of the Obama manner were exposed in his address
to the Turkish parliament and his press conference with the
Turkish leadership. The president did not take the opportunity to
reiterate his principled stand on the Armenian genocide that we
are commemorating this month and took refuge in platitudes about
healing and negotiation. It's not as if the Turks don't know what he
thinks, so it's difficult to see the value of undue reticence. And
it's hardly an accident that, in all successful attempts at settling
accounts with the past in other nations, the word reconciliation has
invariably been preceded by the word truth. The first duty is to stop
lying. Only then can any genuine attempt at settlement get under way.
It was also somewhat naive of Obama to deny that the United States is
"or ever will be" at war with Islam. Of course, one cannot exactly make
war on a faith, most especially a faith that is currently undergoing
a civil war within itself, in which Turkey has several times been
attacked by Bin Ladenist forces. But twice in the past, jihad has
been officially proclaimed from Turkey's capital. It was in the
name of the Quran that the piratical Ottoman provinces known as the
Barbary States took hundreds of thousands of American and European
voyagers into slavery in the 18th century, until Thomas Jefferson
dispatched the fleet and the Marines to put down the trade, and it
was from Constantinople that the Ottoman military alliance with German
imperialism in 1914 was proclaimed as a holy war binding on all good
Muslims. In other words, what one really wants is an assurance that
Islam is not, nor ever will be, at war (again) with the United States.
That Obama is confused about this, and also slightly weak,
is demonstrated by his earlier attempt at quiet diplomacy, or
constructive engagement, or whatever we agree to call it, with
Iran. He sent a message to "the people and leaders of Iran" on the
occasion of Nowruz, or New Year-a day that he may or may not have
known is slightly frowned upon by the Islamic authorities, because
it involves fire ceremonies and other celebrations that predate the
Muslim conquest of Persia. Any offense they might have taken on that
score must have been mollified when the president twice referred to
the country as "the Islamic Republic of Iran," as in, "The United
States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place
in the community of nations."
Does this boilerplate goodwill represent anything true? In order for
the great and civilized nation of Persia to take its rightful place
in the community of nations, it would have to be able to demonstrate
that its leadership was freely chosen by its own people and that it
was willing to abide by agreements and undertakings (on nontrifling
matters such as nuclear proliferation) that it had solemnly signed. The
mullahs rule Iran on the basis of a Khomeini-ite dogma known as the
veliyate faqui, which makes them the owners and "guardians" of all
the country's citizens. And they have been covertly seeking enriched
uranium of the sort not required for a civilian nuclear program,
while never ceasing to proclaim the imminent and apocalyptic return
of the 12th or "hidden" imam. In other words, in order to claim its
"rightful place" in any recognizable community of nations, Iran would
in effect have to cease to be an Islamic republic.
Meanwhile, the theocratic regime has several times exerted its power to
arrest and imprison Iranian-Americans for "offenses" that would not be
crimes in any civilized country. The most recent such outrage is the
imprisonment of journalist Roxana Saberi, framed for allegedly buying
a bottle of wine. We should hear more from the White House about her
case and less about the sensitivities of her jailers. Some differences
cannot be split. Many conflicts are real and do not arise from mere
cultural misunderstandings. Obama must learn this or be taught it,
whichever comes sooner.