Tweet
SENSITIVE, NEW-AGE GUY: THE U.S. PRESIDENT MUST LEARN HE CAN'T PUSSYFOOT AROUND REPRESSIVE REGIMES LIKE IRAN
Christopher Hitchens
The Gazette
April 15, 2009 Wednesday
Montreal
U.S. 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 might come a time when even his transatlantic 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 Centre.
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 U.S. power. It's
absurd to act as if, at NATO and G-20 meetings, the United States is
just another modest member. In the case of NATO, it is at least first
among equals, 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 the U.S. 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 thousands of
U.S. 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 might or might 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 offence 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 non-trifling
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
velayate faghih, 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, 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 offences 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.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and Slate Magazine,
where this column originally appeared.
Christopher Hitchens
The Gazette
April 15, 2009 Wednesday
Montreal
U.S. 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 might come a time when even his transatlantic 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 Centre.
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 U.S. power. It's
absurd to act as if, at NATO and G-20 meetings, the United States is
just another modest member. In the case of NATO, it is at least first
among equals, 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 the U.S. 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 thousands of
U.S. 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 might or might 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 offence 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 non-trifling
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
velayate faghih, 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, 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 offences 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.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and Slate Magazine,
where this column originally appeared.