Obama's Cairo Speech: Liberal Foreign Policy Put to the Test

Obama's Cairo speech has been sharply criticized by conservatives. Charles Krauthammer, whom I admire, had a scathing criticism of it on Fox. But I think this was unfair. It was on the whole a pretty good speech. He did fudge a lot of history and make a lot of suspect moral equivalencies. But he also said a lot of things that needed saying, and coming from him, who the rest of the world recognizes as a new hope, that is important. Consider this:

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

I wonder if George McGovern noticed that part, as he seems to consider the invasion of Afghanistan as a mistake. Here Obama is defending Bush policy, and defending it pretty well.

And then there is this:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

That was pretty good too. "This bond is unbreakable" is about as good a line as a political speech can encompass. There's no wobble in it.

If there is a problem with the speech, it lies in the theory behind it. The Obama Administration is clearly proceeding on the idea that previous policy (Dubya to be sure, but implicitly Clinton and his predecessors) wasn't sympathetic enough. So we have to start again:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

This was a key idea in Obama's campaign, and one that is still flying from the flag poll: that if we could only approach one another honestly, and with sympathy, we would realize that we all want the same things. Bush's arrogance and unilateralism alienated our allies and the rest of the world. Obama will mend the world by his compassion and high minded ability to step back from the quarrels.

It's a beautiful idea. But it hasn't been working out so well just yet. Obama tried it in Europe, where adoring masses gather to cheer him. But what did he get from the Europeans in terms of real concessions and cooperation? Nothing. Now he is sweet taking the Islamic Middle East. That gets lots of applause. But are Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah, any more willing or able, let alone both, to make genuine concessions and move toward resolution of the various conflicts? Don't hold your breath.

 It's a nice idea, and it is the heart of liberal thought on foreign policy, that the problems of the world lie with us. If we could just change, and surely we can manage that, the solutions to the Arab/Israeli conflict, Iran's belligerence, Al Qaeda, would suddenly become clear. But what if the problem isn't with us, or isn't just with us? What if the problem with the world is the world. What is Iran doesn't really share "common principles with us," but has different, irreconcilable and nonnegotiable principles? What if the Palestinians just aren't interested in any deal that allows Israel to exist?

Obama has done a thing either foolhardy or courageous: he has put the fundamental principle of liberal foreign policy to the test. Now we get to see it tested.

Comments

[A.I.]

KB, there is at least one "conservative" voice (aside from your own) who is complementary of Obama's Cairo speech, Richard Lugar. Some of his comments can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090605/pl_bloomberg/anr10rbcgdeq

I do have at least one quarrel with your assertions which is the notion that "liberals" believe "the problems of the world lie with us" and that a different approach on our part will magically make them go away. The "blame America first" conservative talking point is a miss-characterization of liberal thought and of those currently in charge of foreign policy as is the notion they believe admitting mistakes is the deus ex machina of problem solving.

They certainly recognize the Arab/Israeli conflict, for example, is rooted in centuries-old rivalries and America can hardly be blamed for problems that predate its existence. They also recognize America's approach to the Mideast has had its shortcomings while actions of Mideast countries have also been less than perfect. And they are saying we acknowledge our mistakes and stand ready to put them behind us and move on.
Changing our behavior in that regard is a "new beginning". It won't necessarily solve existing problems, but it won't create obstacles to their resolution either.

[caheidelberger]

"foolhardy or courageous" -- reminds me of Luther's exhortation to "sin boldly." Indeed, if there are parties determined not to communicate honestly (like Kim Jon Il, or whichever offspring takes charge next), then we have no choice but to abandon negotiation and fight.

[Erik]

KB:
Very thoughtful post. Actually, I would say that Obama's speech is an example of Wilsonian idealism (which is ironic because Wilson was, among many other things, a southern racist who thought Birth of a Nation was great history). So, yes, this is a test of American liberalism...
Erik