Monday, April 12, 2010 - 4:42 PM

In a conversation about Kazakhstan's backsliding on democratic reforms, this story over at the Cable relates that President Obama downplayed any pressure by telling Kazakhstan's President Nazarbayev that the United States is still "working" on its own democracy. And in a rather clumsy effort to walk back from the obvious implication of moral equivalency between the Kazakh and American systems, NSC Senior Director Mike McFaul (who himself has a long-standing commitment to democracy promotion) pointed not to the strength of America's national principles but to, well, his own boss: "[Obama's] taken, I think, rather historic steps to improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United States."
The problem with these Obama Administration statements is not that they are technically false. Virtually every American would concede that, measured against a Platonic ideal, the American democratic system will always have areas for improvement. And virtually every American would also see President Obama's election as a historic achievement in light of America's troubled racial past.
The problem with President Obama's reported statements is rather than, in context, they are untrue and unhelpful. There are several reasons why:
Erlan Idrissov, Kazakstan's ambassador to the U.S., said in an interview that Mr. Obama offered Mr. Nazarbayev the Winston Churchill quote on democracy being "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." "There was no pressure at all in the meeting," the ambassador said."
President Obama addressed some of these last concerns admirably and forcefully in his Oslo speech last year. But with this latest missed opportunity with Kazakhstan, one worries that old habits might be returning.
As a ardent Obama supporter I do think this apologetic rhetoric hurts rather than helps us. Don't take what i'm saying to mean that I'm Cowboy George and think the rest of the world should be subservient to the awesome perfection that is our country. No, Khalid, it's possible that Obama is just an inexperienced politician who is hurting America by apologizing. Acknowledge our mistakes, move on from them, and keep our head held high - don't equivocate American democracy to Kazak democracy. Such statements sully our nation's history.
Finally it especially pained me to read the following:
"They are demoralizing. Besides Nazarbayev himself, Obama's most important audience is the beleaguered Kazakh human rights and democracy activists, who need bold and unequivocal expressions of support from the most powerful and most free nation in the world -- not hand-wringing and moral equivalency."
You would've thought this new administration would be a beacon for HR activists and the like, and not have to confuse and worry them with silly moral relativism.
Yes Obama has come across presenting a more humble America but he has not apologised for it on any occasion and has been aggressive in exercising American power (E.g. Afghanistan, special forces raid in Somalia which even Bush didn't do). Just because he's not going around the world screaming "We're Number 1!" doesn't mean that he's ashamed or apologising. Admiting that America has made mistakes and is not perfect is not the same as apologising and talking about how America is percieved by some people is not the same as saying I believe those perceptions are right. When asked whether he believes in American exceptionalism in France Obama went into a lengthy lecture about America's greatness being rooted in the constitution searching for a more perfect union made America exceptional whilst also acknowledging that the British and Greeks might also share similar thoughts on their own nations. It is also worth remembering that it was George W Bush who campaigned in 2000 about presenting a more humble America to the world and no dictating to other nations (obviously this didn't work out). Stay away from this Obama is apologising stuff, it is misleading and attempts to tap into the belief that some Americans have that only certain Americans with certain views are "real" or patriotic....and it is just plain wrong.
There is a world of difference...
... between arrogance and ignorance. Americans appear arrogant to others because we're often ignorant of our own history. Mention the name "Mossadegh" to the average American and they'll give you a blank stare. Hell, mention "Iranian Hostage Crisis" to the average American under 35 and they'll think some of our diplomats were kidnapped recently.
If Obama is "apologizing," he's doing a poor job of it. Mea culpas come cheap, and the parts of the world that dislike us know that. What the world wants from the US is a definite and genuine change in attitudes and actions, especially post-Bush. When they see that, they'll be more inclined to warm to us.
I don't think Obama is apologizing so much as making the newbie politician's mistake: speaking in subtlety and nuance. He talks about "spreading the wealth around" (which is what welfare, medicare, social security, etc etc do) and he's branded a socialist. He mentions the imperfection of American democracy and it's "apologizing" (for what, I'm not sure - do we owe the rest of the world a more perfect domestic electoral system? I thought we owed OURSELVES that).
Maybe he's trying to drag the level of discourse kicking and screaming onto a higher level; maybe he just doesn't realize that politics has the same complexity and wit as a WWF match, especially these days. Either way, Obama lacks FDR's charm, patience and poll numbers: he's no heir to the "Great Educator."
In the eyes of this disappointed liberal, he's flubbing it.
I say we elect Michelle instead. Her poll numbers are better and I hear she's smarter and tougher.
Especially with the analysis of Obama's flubbed attempts at subtlety and nuance. He should be more guarded with his rhetoric, certainly to at least know that the phrase "spread the wealth" should never be uttered.
But with this story, and much of the "apologizing tour" criticisms, it's all just a talking point. Why would Mike McFaul answer like that? "There was no equivalence meant whatsoever" seems to validate the reading that perhaps there WAS moral equivalence in Obama's words, but Obama somehow didn't MEAN it. Wouldn't it be easier to say "That's not the case whatsoever" -- DONE -- "The point of this meeting was to show President Nazarbayev that democracy is a commitment, that it must be worked at and improved. This is part of their commitment in heading the OSCE. The president leaves this meeting feeling confident Nazarbayev will continue to work at improving his democracy, as we have done in the long history of our country. We must continue to be an example for democracy across the world yada yada yada," or something along those lines??
But at this point, we're criticizing the subtlety and nuance of an NSC spokesman.
After hearing the GOP criticism of Obama's Cairo speech as just another "I'm sorry" to the Muslim world (and in particular the horrible reporting at the National Review, who wrongly stated that the President couldn't even bring himself to say the word "Democracy" in that speech, despite him saying it over a dozen times), it became clear that this was just a talking point, not a matter of actual policy or reality.
I also find it astounding how flippantly the "apology tour" criticism has changed. During the campaign and the trip to Prauge, he apologized as if to say "Bush was bad, but I'm different, so LOVE ME" -- which caught the ire of the right, labeling him a fame-whore (this was the Paris Hilton advert). Either way, it seemed to work, b/c he won the election and became popular in European populations. Then later, this same approach is labeled "un-American," "un-democratic," "weak" -- regardless of the fact that all GOPers from McCain to News Corp did the same thing domestically during the 08 campaign. Either it makes him strong b/c Bush-hating is popular, or it makes him weak, b/c Bush-hating is unpopular. They should hurry up and decide already.
On another note, there is something to be pondered in Obama's treatment of foreign allies. Krauthammer at WashPo discussed this recently (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040102805.html), though he bludgeons his own criticism by insinuating (as he does so often now) that Obama's just NOT that interested in foreign policy. (Ironically, I think Obama's college thesis was on nuclear deterrent and disarmament).
He certainly needs some improvement in the subtlety and nuance of his communications, that I agree with. But beyond that, please hold the talking points for another day -- or at least for a grander stage (Kazakhstan... really??)
The only thing other nations hate worse than an involved, activist America is a inward looking, isolationist America.
Yankee go home...but leave the credit card. Thanks. The World.
to the native Americans for the genocide against them
to the Black Africans killed in the "land of the free" and those killed on their way here
to the Philippinos for the genocide against them
to the Haitians for the terrible act of Thomas Jefferson's refusal to recognize their freedom when the Black Haitians revolted against French colonials
to the Haitians again for occupying their country, and then again for ousting their elected government, then again for forcing cheap imported rice on them to hand over the monopoly to American corporations who then raised the price and made it unaffordable for the public
to the Americans killed in WWI when USA had no reason to enter the war
to the millions of Vietnamese decimated by US military after the US refused to allow them to have a free election, because in the words of Truman in an election in United Vietnam people would have definitely elected the communist leader Ho Chi Minh
to the millions of Koreans decimated by US invasion when US had no business there (except to force a particular system on an unwilling country thousands of miles away)
to the thousands of Iranians who lost their lives at the hands of brutal King who was installed by CIA and MI5 coup in 1953 and who was supported with money and weapons until 1979 when popular uprising forced him into exile.
to the hundreds of thousands of Cambodians who lost their lives to US bombing just because there was a lull in Vietnam and they just decided to bomb poor peasants who had nothing to do with war.
to the thousands of people who lost their lives in Chile after 9/11 (1973) when US backed a coup to overturn Allende's elected government and install a puppet dictator Pinochet
to the millions of Afghans who lost their lives in the proxy war for US from 1979 to 1989
to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Argentina, Cuba and other Latin American countries by US-trained and US-supported terrorists
to the half million Iraqi kids and countless Iraqi adults who lost their lives because of US bombing and US-imposed sanctions on Iraq in 1990s that prevented the import of life saving drugs. Madeline Albright was of the opinion that the cost of half million Iraqi kids (more than the number killed in WW) "was worth it" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
to the millions of Afghans bombed since 2001 in the "war of terror"
to the millions of Iraqis bombed since 2003 in the name of phony weapons of mass destruction
*Yawn* at the idea that states need not act with some level of humility with respect to their past as individuals do. People make mistakes. Groups make mistakes. Countries make mistakes and so does humanity.
I'd rather a leader who tries to meet other countries' leaders as equals that someone who tries to shove the notion of American exceptionalism down everyone's throats.
This is a great country by a lot of standards, but as optimistcitizen above has pointed out, we have frequently failed to meet our own standards. Trying to be a better country than we have been in the past does not diminish the fact that we have been admired in this world for the selflessness and courageness we have displayed throughout our history when the world need us to do so. What is not admirable is the failure to acknowledge that we have often supported very unsavory characters in different parts of the world, and that has done us no credit.
Bushism may have made the right wing in the US happy and proud, but it was certainly much less appreciated beyond our shores. I cannot believe Imboden dares to hold up the Bush leadership as a model to anyone of "transparency, accountability, and rule of law".
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE