Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Obama's Change Simply Cosmetic?
Obama may gain some trust, but America's deceptive belief that it is not an empire condemns its leader to repeating old mistakes
Obama's masterful Cairo speech is an eloquent sign that Washington is under new management, but can his shift in rhetoric deliver the kind of change Arabs and Muslims can believe in?
Whatever else he achieves during his stint as president, one thing we can be sure of is that Barack Obama will consistently deliver masterful speeches. Not only does he put his bumbling predecessor to shame, he easily outshone his drab and cautious Egyptian host, Hosni Mubarak.
His Cairo speech was both daring and cautious, conciliatory and confrontational, nuanced and simplistic. Despite the undoubted heat he will face for it from his conservative opponents back home, Obama did not shy away from praising Islamic culture and highlighting the centuries-old mash of civilisations, which stands in stark contrast to the clash favoured by the previous administration. I was also surprised that he referred to the Qur'an four times in his 45-minute speech.
This rhetorical shift away from the clash of civilisations is laudable and, to his credit, Obama did not shy away from criticising some aspects of US foreign policy. But can the master orator's eloquence deliver the kind of change in American attitudes and foreign policy needed?
Well, hints of the Real McCoy American arrogance were clear to see. Obama insisted that "America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire", but is "founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world."
Of course, America is not the evil empire, as some outsiders allege, but nor is it the benign superpower, as too many Americans believe. Obama's description smacks too much of American exceptionalism and the country's wishful self-image as the "Land of the Free" standing up for liberty wherever it is threatened. And it is this self-deception, this belief that America is not an empire, that it is not motivated by imperial designs, that it is somehow more virtuous than the rest of the world that will condemn it to keep repeating the same mistakes.
And it is not Obama but this empire that dare not speak its name that many people around the world ultimately distrust. The president's words went down quite well among many Arabs, while a poll carried out shortly before this visit found that Obama's approval rating among Arabs hovers around the 45% point - a far cry from George Bush's public villain number one status. But just because they are fond of the emperor, it does not mean that Arabs trust the empire: a full three-quarters still regarded the US as the second greatest threat in the world.
And, to a certain extent, they have a point: beneath the inviting and embracing surface gloss, there still lurks the outline of the same old American foreign policies, especially relating to Afghanistan, where Obama insists on pursuing a military solution in a part of the world where decades of superpower intervention have only brought misery. While he seems willing to spend hundreds of billions more on a war that has already cost hundreds of billions, he could only find a paltry $2.8bn for development in Afghanistan over an unspecified period of time.
His refusal to acknowledge US culpability in invading Afghanistan was dishonest, since America did not have to succumb to kneejerk vengeance after the 11 September attacks, especially since the Taliban were a monster of US-Pakistani making. However, it is welcome that he recognises that the US should not have invaded Iraq, but whether he will do anything to return control of the Iraqi economy to Iraqis once US troops pull out remains to be seen.
Obama has indicated a greater willingness to take a more robust and hands-on approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has used much tougher words than his predecessor when referring to Israel, which has sparked anger and panic among Israel's new rightwing government. But Obama comes to the table with nothing new - besides the weathered and worn road map - and he may well meet with the same kind of failure Bill Clinton did.
One reason why the peace process broke down is that Washington has never succeeded in playing the role of an honest and impartial broker. How likely is it that Obama, as a self-described "friend of Israel", will lean hard enough on an Israel led by the populist, rightwing Binyamin Netanyahu and his demagogical deputy and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, especially with the presence of the equally extremist Hamas sitting among the Palestinian leadership? At this point, gradual grassroots efforts offer the best hope for a breakthrough.
Obama's stance on global nuclear disarmament is a noble one in principle. However, how likely is it that the US and the other major nuclear powers will give up their membership in the nuclear arms club?
On the topic of democracy and freedom, Obama delivered a breath of fresh air when he said: "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other ... America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election."
His insistence that change must come from within and that the US could only help indirectly was a very mature position to take. However, his failure to directly criticise the dismal record of Washington's to closest Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, left a bitter taste in the mouths of opposition figures and reformers.
In fact, quite a few Egyptians questioned the wisdom of Obama's choice of Egypt as his podium. "Obama, a man of democracy and diplomacy, has made a mistake coming to Cairo as opposed to a secular and democratic state, such as Turkey," opined Kholoud Khalifa, a young Egyptian journalist.
To help the process of democratisation, Washington does not need to oppose the regimes in Cairo or Riyadh actively, but to withdraw its current support, such as the $1.3 billion of military aid that goes to Egypt each year.
With Obama, change will almost certainly come, but whether there is enough change to make a real positive difference is something only time will tell.
34 Comments so far
Show AllTime indeed will tell when it comes to whether the bright promises of the Obama speech become realities. It will begin to tell when Congress considers appropriations for Afghan reconstruction or military aid to authoritarian Egypt or Middle-eastern gone-wild Israel. Unless the money starts to go where the President's mouth is, we will have de facto a continuation and extension of that American Empire that is the scourge of so much of the world.
The Bush Regimne planned the Iraq occupation to be ongoing, thereby assuring the military industrial media complex an eternal revenue stream.
In view of the pressure on politicians to create and maintain economic stimulus, don't expect many US politicians to advocate cuts in military spending. Military spending in the US has evolved from the default economic stimulus to the economic stimulus of choice.
It is an easy act to follow. Being mediocre is all it takes to be an infinite improvement compared to Bush. In that regard, Obama was lucky--surely the comparison to criminal failure makes slick mediocre seem like the second coming. Unfortunately, Obama can play only the one role, hollow rhetoric delivered without conviction in soaring tones, and paternalistic moralistic lecturing by a polished, suave shell. When occasionally called on inconsistancies, his irritation is in evidence and he fails miserably at humility. Most likely he will be remembered as mediocre in substance--a fad or a pop culture icon serving the same masters as a placeholder for the status quo.
Vern: Obama as a "placeholder for the status quo." That says a lot in a few words, I'll have to try to remember it.
Yeah, yeah, one the one hand, and on the other hand....
World power is economic. It has very little to do with politics.
One of the best examples of this was described by Naomi Klein when she explained how South Africans gained political independence, but surrendered virtually all economic power to the economic interests that had run South frica for several hundred years (The Boers, the apartheid system...)
Israel is an economic power. We have a strong economic relationship with Israel. Palestine is nothing.
Saudi Arabia and the oil emirates (including Kuwait) have been using Palestinians as a source of cheap educated labor for the past 40 years. They have no economic interest in Palestine.
And who believes we are in Iraq for political reasons?
And Afghanistan - Pielinestan ? Opium for the CIA?
Congress and Obama serve their corporate masters. The military exists to back our corporate masters.
Isn't is nice that we have Obama to tell us warm and fuzzy stories and to make us feel better -- yes we can.
Bread and circuses....
Israel is not our friend and the only thing that gives them superiority in the Middle East is our billions of dollars in military aid. Cut off that aid, and they would be forced to meet the Palestinians at the negotiating table as equals, instead of treating them as something lower than the animals.
We are in Iraq to steal their oil.
Saudi Arabia isn't our friend, either, although their royal family is friends with the Bushes. Who do you think bailed Georgie Boy out so he could sell all his stock in his oil company just before it went belly up?
As long as the public stay fascinated by the curtain of war, war in the holy lands, war in the desert lands, war in the mountain lands, and all of our attention continues to settle on how to win the wars, we will always forget that the real war is on the American public. It's number one strategy to keep us looking away from home and obsessed with some other people in some other land.
Meanwhile the rape of the American trust continues unabated and unchallenged by those it hurts most, home of the free, land of the brave?
If we'd get out of the wars on which we're wasting billions of dollars a week, we'd have more than enough money available to provide Universal Single-payer Health Care for every American, including medical, dental, vision and mental health coverage. We'd also have more than enough money left over to provide a public education for every American _at_least_ through the second year of community college. We might even have enough to pay for a four-year college education for every American. And we could provide welfare funding to support single-parent households while the parent goes to school and learns how to be a contributing member of society.
wow this article is a true testament to double speak
roll the tape:
zinger #1: "His Cairo speech was both daring and cautious, conciliatory and confrontational, nuanced and simplistic"
it was tall and short
it was near and far
it was black and white
sadly, it lacked content of any kind but it was somehow it was both round and square
zinger #2: "America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire", but is "founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world."
this fluff doesn't even pass the giggle test
america was founded on the ideal that all are created equal
huh
sure it was - hic - so long as you weren't a nigger, chink, injun or irish
zinger #3: Of course, America is not the evil empire, as some outsiders allege, but nor is it the benign superpower, as too many Americans believe
this is a reprise of point number one where it is up and down - here and there - yada yada yada
zinger #4: Obama has indicated a greater willingness to take a more robust and hands-on approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has used much tougher words than his predecessor when referring to Israel, which has sparked anger and panic among Israel's new rightwing government
yeh - they told obama to fuck off - but that's ok - they tell the whole world to fuck off
zinger #5: One reason why the peace process broke down is that Washington has never succeeded in playing the role of an honest and impartial broker
no shit
washington, as controlled by jewish money and aipac has been a "friend" to israel no matter how many war crimes they commit
birds of a feather stick together
the notion that the us can serve as a mediator here is as stupid as this article
zinger #6: Obama delivered a breath of fresh air when he said: "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other ... America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election."
this is just an out and out morsel of bullshit of the highest order
obvioulsy this author is weither an idiot or a mossad disinfo artist
even having said that the statement is beyond comment
last one
zinger #7: With Obama, change will almost certainly come, but whether there is enough change to make a real positive difference is something only time will tell
where's my vomit bag
the change obama is going to bring to police state america is having half the american citizens in debtor's prison and the other half in fema prisons as untried and unconvicted "domestic terrorists"
i feel like letting loose a long list of foul language uponm the house of this writer - and i use that word hesitatingly - but i have already said enough
Thanks for refraining from ending with a coda of profanity that, while appropriate, might have caused the rest of your cogent analysis to be disappeared.
"Of course, America is not the evil empire, as some outsiders allege..."
Perhaps not, but for damn sure it's the evil empire as we INSIDERS allege.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Nice rejoinder to our wishy-washy journalist scribbler!
Obysmal's speeches are now like listening to elevator muzak orchestrated by Mozart. Henry Ruth, who was part of Archibald's Cox's team during Watergate, said in a tv documentary about that event that he no longer believed anything . . . anything . . . that came out of Washington (and this was long before George Wanker Bush). Only actions count and I suspect that in 2012 things in the Middle East will look exactly as they look now.
For all of his pandering...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxt9HwfPwPo
From a public relations standpoint: this speech was almost perfect. Even the corporate press was largely bowled over with admiration and awe. Obama is the perfect foil to Bush II, he is articulate, sophisticated and smoothe.
However, as some posts above point out, actions speak louder than words. The US is indeed an aggressive Empire bent on its own percieved narrowly-defined interests (that is "national self interest is the interest of a small group of Elite).
The hypocrisy and double standards remain. It seems that the speech was performed as damage control over the image of the US abroad and nothing more.
"It seems that the speech was performed as damage control over the image of the US abroad and nothing more"
For the dumbed-down domestic audience state-side, perhaps. Can't see anywhere else in the world being swept off their feet.
True that, however if we believe the US MSM (of course we don't but a huge chunk of Americans do), the rest of the world loved the speech and highlighted how the Egyptian audience gave him several rounds of enthusiastic applause.
Also, notice how many media personalities and pundits applauded Obama for his courage in challenging the legitimacy of Israeli settlement expansion and how that would cause tensions with Israel. Enough to make you feel nauseous and retch.
Yes, a public relations standout - if only he ment it.
Ken Ward: President Obama's remarks on extremism and violence would have won the hearty endorsement of the late King George III. By the same token, they were a strong repudiation of the reckless actions of the late George Washington. Surely an agreement could have been worked out peacefully in time between Britain and her North American colonies if only the rebels had first renounced violence and recognised previous agreements, and if, for their part, the British had agreed to a freeze on settlement expansion. All it needed was for an Obama-like voice of moderation to be heard in time.
"His Cairo speech was both daring and cautious, conciliatory and confrontational, nuanced and simplistic."
Yes, like it was written by a guy with a Master's in Fiction Writing.... (google 'Ben Rhodes', why don't you?)
Why did Obama pick Egypt? Could it be because Obama needs Egypt's help with Gaza and would be 'internationally' crippled without it? Could it be because the Muslim Brotherhood originated here?
Turkey...
Turkey is the best example a democratic state in the ME, unless, of course, you are a Turkish person who considers himself part of Europe. Turkey is also at its strongest right now, expressing a great resurgence in the ME, Caucasus, and Eurasia regions. The US is desperate to keep Turkey's interest and is hopeful to us Turkey as a liaison, but what does Turkey have to gain? Ankara already knows it is powerful and well respected and closely watched by Muslims around the globe. Having courtship from both Russian and the US makes for an interesting future. Obama thinks he can control the hands dealt. Such confidence shows and draws uncertain attention.
Because of Israel, the US is losing Turkey.
Another joy of supporting Zionism.
Regarding America's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, what seems to be forgotten by many Americans is that Bush demanded just a week or two after the terrorist attacks that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States. The Taliban said that they would just as soon as the U.S. had produced evidence to them of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11. Curiously, there was no reply from Bush regarding this issue. A few weeks later, Ari Fleischer said that it would take a little time to come up with the evidence. As of this date still no evidence has been produced either by the neoconservatives or by the Obama administration. Perhaps not so surprisingly, this also happens to coincide with the FBI stating that the reason that they have not placed bin Laden on their Most Wanted List in relation to the terrorist attacks is because they do not have enough hard evidence to connect him to 9/11.
And yet our less than intrepid media has been largely silent [if not totally mute] about the part that bin Laden has played or, to be more precise, did not play on Sept. 11, 2001 and the fact that the Bush administration had failed to link him in any way to 9/11. It would seem that it is far easier to place the blame on these attacks on a very tall bearded man [who may or may not still be living] who just happens to be Muslim then it is for the corporate media to finally start asking some hard questions about the government's feeble explanations as to what had occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
Check out the post of ma g June 5th, 2009 11:37 am in this thread. Many good points.
The author of this piece of hogwash journalism ought to be ashamed of himself.
Obama Nominee Linked to Spying on Muslims, CIA Torture
The Obama administration’s pick for a top Homeland Security position has ties to the FBI spying on Muslim Americans, as well as reported links to CIA torture. Philip Mudd has been nominated to become secretary of intelligence and analysis at Homeland Security.
Change we can believe in? Trust is brittle.
Thank God for small favors; he already withdrew.
His name was Mudd.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Big ships of state, like the US, can only change course very slowly, Obama likes to lecture everybody.
Yeah, Obama. And the more tangled by empire necessities the big ships of state are, like the US, the more impossible their chances for humane, democratic course corrections become.
If Obama's rhetoric of change is to ever be believed or mean anything, he would first need to publicly admit and work against the fact that the USA government is handmaiden-agent of an immoral, illegal, and popularly loathed empire across the globe.
Obama would almost certainly be assassinated for openly admitting this fact, and would be definitely-so for trying to change it, however less openly .
But at least he'd die for truth.
It's understandable that he doesn't want to prematurely die to save a fallen human race. But since that's just what his professed God, Jesus (a noble symbol, if man, in any case) did, he at least ought to stop comparing himself to Abe Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
The above article from the Guardian, UK, is entitled:
"Is Obama's Change Simply Cosmetic?
Obama may gain some trust, but America's deceptive belief that it is not an empire condemns its leader to repeating old mistakes"
The AlJazeera article further below provides another old mistake that has been often repeated. In past cases, certainly with videos anyway, it was sometimes the real Usama Bin Ladin, but recordings made long before when the Bush-Cheney administration claimed, videos made long before and some, I think, slightly "redone". There are people who have written well enough about that subject, so we can just search for the articles, which shouldn't be difficult to do. I'm satisfied with having seen for myself what were not authentic in terms of what was claimed by Bush, Cheney, etcetera, and that in at least some cases, it was not UBL at all.
The photo in the AlJazeera article shows that it's not really Usama Bin Ladin, who the article is supposedly about. Look at original photos of the real UBL, then look at the photo in this AlJazeera article, and we again find (as has been the case a number of times since 9-11) that it's not the real UBL.
"Bin Laden attacks Obama policies", June 3, 2009
(url broken over two lines)
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/
200963123251920623.html
It's been believed for years now by serious analysts or experts that UBL died by at least sometime in 2005. Some say he died by the end of 2001; some say sometime in 2002; others say as recently as 2005; and I don't recall having read about any of these serious analysts or experts saying they think he died anytime after or since 2005. And the likelihood he died is high, strong, because of his kidney problem and not being able to tote around a dialysis machine, or whatever the medical equipment was that he needed regular access to.
The U.S. empire "elites" would like us to believe that UBL is still alive and to be hunted, but they have oddly (say) forgotten that it's unlikely that he's still alive and to make sure that the U.S. Justice Dept and FBI have UBL charged for responsibility in the 9-11 attacks. That the U.S. still has not done the latter legal "bit" is additional proof that the war on Afghanistan and the Taliban could never be justifiable; could and would never be.
The U.S. government has no official criminal charges against UBL for the 9-11 attacks! And Bush stated prior to Oct. 7, 2001, the day the war on the Taliban was officially launched (besides the fact that Bush had plans for commanding this war on the presidential desk on Sept. 9, 2001, two days prior to the 9-11 attacks in the USA!), that the Taliban had had [nothing] to do with these attacks in the U.S.A., and they didn't. The Taliban had no relationship to the 9-11 attacks! And this latter fact has been enough to always prove that the war on the Taliban and Afghanistan could never be justifiable; but we also have the additional fact that the Bush-Cheney administration also never obtained or established official U.S. government charges against UBL for the 9-11 attacks!
We can verify that there are no charges established against UBL for 9-11 by simply checking the FBI's website. Some reporter had questioned an FBI agent or official about this lacune and the FBI person eventually said that it's not for the FBI to decide whether someone's guilty, or not; saying that that's the job of the Justice Dept.
(That also means that the DoJ is guilty along with Bush, Cheney, and ... so on. After all, the DoJ didn't charge UBL for the 9-11 attacks and hasn't charged the Bush-Cheney administration for having commanded and continued war of aggression, totally unjustifiable and criminal war.)
Anyway, who's the clown pretending to be UBL, the idiot photo'd in the AlJazeera article, I wonder. These clowns should grow up and simply be honest. They do absolutely no good for anyone, but could (alternatively) be covertly planted by the U.S., too. The latter would not be intelligent, for it's easy to prove that this clown is not the real UBL, f.e. It's also easy to relate this clownery with historical covert ops of the U.S. "elites". There can be no expected good for Islam. But is this jackass another covert plant of the U.S. "elites", or just an idiot who thinks that by pretending to be UBL he can possibly do good for Muslisms? I don't know what the quack is, but he's certainly not the real UBL.
"I don't know what the quack is, but he's certainly not the real UBL."
is that your gut instinct?
:O)
after reading comments by rep. lamar smith where he states that "the greatest threat to america is a liberal media bias" it was almost enough to, as ma gis inclined, let loose that long list.
perhaps smith and diab could sit together in a small room and hash out the details on what they consider to be serious journalism.
frankly, with their glaring diminished or limited mental capacities, it's safe to say they're both full of shit and each should be without work.
ma g is...
sorry about that.
Nanoo
I think it is a mistake to label Hamas as an extremist in this article. Afterall Obama went on and on about extremists being the bad guys. The author also fails to mention "The Letter" Hamas wrote to Obama that was to be hand delivered by Codepink.
What did you expect, given the title?
Who really believes anything the "House Negro" in the White House says?
Mr. Obama is a shill of the financial district. Just stop listening; his words are opium to the weak and hopeful.
Point to one campaign promise he is working to implement. Gitmo will not be closed. It is a diversion to the issue of the international gulags the USA has set up.
Do you believe Mr. Obama is doing anything to cure the financial crisis? He is only letting the Wall Street banksters get their money out before the world financial system is allowed to tank completely.
Look what he did to GM. Why does he not do the same to the banksters? GM has real assets, the banks are a ponzi scheme.
If you don't know the answer, you are willfully blind.