Conservatives have been pretty brutal about President Obama's speech to the UN. For an example, see the commentary at my favorite non-SDP blog, Powerline. While I agree that there is a lot of silliness in the address, that is to be expected. But there is also a lot of good strong rhetoric, and on the whole I didn't think it was a bad piece of work.
I think conservative critics were right to point out the narcissistic element in the President's rhetoric. Here is the passage that is getting the most attention:
We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems - it will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.
On my first day in office, I prohibited - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.
It does seem to me that it's breathtakingly bad form to say to the world: if you don't believe in America, ignore the last two hundred years of its history and just look at what Barack Obama has done. Obama thinks he has redeemed America.
Well, okay, he banned torture. Maybe that will make a lot of governments who routinely torture their dissidents, or routinely murder dissident journalists, feel a lot better about us. I expect it will. But isn't it a little premature to brag about closing Guantanamo Bay when he hasn't closed it yet and has no plan that anyone knows about to get it closed?
On the other hand, I liked this bit:
Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.
That's quite good and strong. This was pretty good as well:
The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict. Or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.
That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, coordinate law enforcement, and protect our people. We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow.
That "on this there can be no dispute" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that was called for.
The trouble is, no one takes the President seriously on any of this. It's great to say that he will stand by our friends, but he just left Poland and the Czech Republic feeling like they have been sold to the Russians. It's great to say that we will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he is obviously wavering on his commitment to victory in Afghanistan.
That may be why two of his biggest fans at the UN are Muammar Gaddafi and Fidel Castro. Neil Gardiner at the British Telegraph puts it this way:
It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits the president at Turtle Bay. Obama's popularity at the UN boils down essentially to his willingness to downplay American global power. He is the first American president who has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States, which he has done on numerous occasions on foreign soil, from Strasbourg to Cairo. The Obama mantra appears to be – ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to atone for your country. This is a message that goes down very well in a world that is still seething with anti-Americanism.
I think the most important statement in his speech was this one line:
I am not naïve.
But he is. He really believes that the desire for peace is universal, and that he can bring the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians around if he just convinces them that peace is what he really wants. I am reminded of Mark Twain's remarks about one unfortunate target of his wit: "it's not what he thinks that bothers me, it's all the things he knows that ain't true."
"He really believes that the desire for peace is universal, and that he can bring the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians around if he just convinces them that peace is what he really wants." You actually wrote this KB?
With all due respect, you don't know what Obama believes about a given country. My guess is he believes most would not go to war unless provoked by overt attack or a threat to their national interests--those being legitimate reasons for war or at least flexing military muscle. Of course there are other reasons like trying to achieve world or regional dominance or to divert attention from domestic problems--especially those rooted in incompetent and/or corrupt leadership. And some threats of attack or to national interests are more imagined than real.
In any case, you don't start out with a working premise that other nations have a "desire" for war, which would be the opposite of the naivete you accuse Obama of. Believing that is not the opposite of naive, it is synonymous with paranoid.
And by the way, Obama"s "apologies" have not been for America's 200-plus year history. Mostly, they have been for certain actions and policies of certain leaders that began January 20, 2001 and ended eight years later. He is basically saying the PNAC was a bad idea poorly implemented and that Angela Merkel need not fear a second, sneak shoulder rub attack.
Posted by: A.I. | Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 09:07 AM
A.I. You are right that I cannot know what Obama believes, on this or anything else. His statements give no clue as to what he will really do on any matter. But it does look like he has staked a lot on his "new approach" to the world. In what does that approach consist? Public atonement, reaching out, insulting our allies and being very, very nice to our enemies. Will it work? We now have a simple test: does Obama get significant sanctions on Iran? If not, his foreign policy will look like a failure. That is a lot to risk on a strategy one does not believe in.
And by the way, that certain leader that Obama and you keep blaming for all our troubles, is that the same leader whose policy on indefinite detention the Obama Administration has now reversed itself on and endorsed? Just asking.
Posted by: KB | Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 06:57 PM