Charisma is No Longer Enough
Published in La Repubblica
(Italy) on 24 September 2009
by Vittorio Zucconi (link to original)
(Italy) on 24 September 2009
by Vittorio Zucconi (link to original)
Translated from
by Claudia Pellicano.
Edited by Jessica Boesl.
Behind his always noble words and his incomparable ability to pronounce them with the passion that set the electoral campaign on fire, the history that Barack Obama told the representatives of the world during his first speech to the U.N. is a ruthless narration of failure, both global and American; the failure of the international community in the face of the useless slaughters of hunger and war. He spoke about the impossibility that the U.N. would be something more than an agency for global civil protection and the distribution of packages and blankets; the guilty delay in facing the disaster of global warming and industrial gases; and the failure of his predecessor, George Bush, who, even after two wars, left behind a world that doesn’t resemble the promise of security and hegemony that neo-conservatives of the "New American Century" desired to be their legacy.
Without ever disowning, accusing or even naming his predecessor, which would have been an unforgivable gesture for the civic American bon ton, the 38 minutes of Obama’s speech outlined a bitter portrait of the world that he and 189 other nations gathered at the U.N. inherited from the hallucination of unilateral intervention. That was claimed as idealism, and now it should be turned into a new “pragmatic multi-lateralism.” Speaking diplomatically about a theme he raised bravely in front of the Afro-American community, the president reiterated that he believes that it “is the time to take our share of responsibility,” not only for America, but also for other nations.
The strong, if implicit, critique that this administration holds of those who came before is of the impossibility of imposing democracy, Obama says, on those who either are not ready to accept it or have not developed the internal conditions to support it. It’s not about giving up the right to use force to defend U.S. security, for which Obama won’t ask for permission. It’s about admitting that the fundamental ideological premise of the Bush doctrine, which Bush himself renounced on his second mandate at the White House, thereby upsetting Vice President Cheney, was fallacious.
America can’t be, on its own nor together with those who follow it, (do you remember the coalition of the willing that crumbled in Iraq?) the power that decides, with suspicious selectivity, where and when to change unpleasant regimes. If no nation is to be condemned to suffer the tyranny of its government, no nation has to be exposed to the tyranny of a foreign government.
The limit of this “pragmatic multi-lateralism,” as Obama explained to an assembly that hasn’t always welcomed him with enthusiasm, is that it takes at least two to make progress and solve problems. Today, persuasive ability, charisma and the strength of the president's personal history are not always enough to persuade adversaries, enemies, and fanatics of more reasonable ideas. It is important that the new head of state in America proves to have concrete goals like the four he listed – the arrest of nuclear proliferation, the ban of atomic experiments, the collective war against the degradation of the environment caused by human activity and new regulations on the economy and global finance.
The leak in the Obama doctrine, though, lies in the willingness of others to participate in the game. Unfortunately, neither Iran nor North Korea has respected their international obligations. And so the paradox remains that solutions depend on those who created the problem, like Ahmadinejad, who spoke yesterday. A dilemma is evident, especially in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Obama asks Netanyahu’s government to put an end to settlements, a public request that immediately upset the Israeli government, even though he also asked Arab ones to give up the vitriolic propaganda against Israel that damages the cause of Palestinian sovereignty itself.
On the continuous failure that this institution, the U.N., and that Bush have left behind, America’s judgment is clear, proven by the growing opposition to the “fair war” in Afghanistan. But it’s the passage to diplomatic persuasion, the pragmatic multi-lateralism that leaves the die-hard followers of Bush skeptical, like the former Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, who immediately accused Obama of putting the head of Israel on the counter of the butcher. The president, relying on rationality and reason, preaches collective responsibility and the end of America as a solitary knight, while basically confines himself to dealing with the world he inherited from Bush, which is devastated by environmental degradation, war, and ethical and financial crises, paid so far by “2 trillion dollars.”
In a tragicomic, rambling speech that lasted 100 atrocious minutes, Gaddafi, in front of a dismayed and progressively deserted assembly, did Obama the doubtful favor of calling him “our son,” the son of Africa, and Italy the doubtful honor of pointing to us as an example. Even if few listened to Gaddafi, abandoning the assembly hall en masse, the serious question is: Will the world pay attention to Obama's open hand after rejecting Bush’s fist?
Without ever disowning, accusing or even naming his predecessor, which would have been an unforgivable gesture for the civic American bon ton, the 38 minutes of Obama’s speech outlined a bitter portrait of the world that he and 189 other nations gathered at the U.N. inherited from the hallucination of unilateral intervention. That was claimed as idealism, and now it should be turned into a new “pragmatic multi-lateralism.” Speaking diplomatically about a theme he raised bravely in front of the Afro-American community, the president reiterated that he believes that it “is the time to take our share of responsibility,” not only for America, but also for other nations.
The strong, if implicit, critique that this administration holds of those who came before is of the impossibility of imposing democracy, Obama says, on those who either are not ready to accept it or have not developed the internal conditions to support it. It’s not about giving up the right to use force to defend U.S. security, for which Obama won’t ask for permission. It’s about admitting that the fundamental ideological premise of the Bush doctrine, which Bush himself renounced on his second mandate at the White House, thereby upsetting Vice President Cheney, was fallacious.
America can’t be, on its own nor together with those who follow it, (do you remember the coalition of the willing that crumbled in Iraq?) the power that decides, with suspicious selectivity, where and when to change unpleasant regimes. If no nation is to be condemned to suffer the tyranny of its government, no nation has to be exposed to the tyranny of a foreign government.
The limit of this “pragmatic multi-lateralism,” as Obama explained to an assembly that hasn’t always welcomed him with enthusiasm, is that it takes at least two to make progress and solve problems. Today, persuasive ability, charisma and the strength of the president's personal history are not always enough to persuade adversaries, enemies, and fanatics of more reasonable ideas. It is important that the new head of state in America proves to have concrete goals like the four he listed – the arrest of nuclear proliferation, the ban of atomic experiments, the collective war against the degradation of the environment caused by human activity and new regulations on the economy and global finance.
The leak in the Obama doctrine, though, lies in the willingness of others to participate in the game. Unfortunately, neither Iran nor North Korea has respected their international obligations. And so the paradox remains that solutions depend on those who created the problem, like Ahmadinejad, who spoke yesterday. A dilemma is evident, especially in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Obama asks Netanyahu’s government to put an end to settlements, a public request that immediately upset the Israeli government, even though he also asked Arab ones to give up the vitriolic propaganda against Israel that damages the cause of Palestinian sovereignty itself.
On the continuous failure that this institution, the U.N., and that Bush have left behind, America’s judgment is clear, proven by the growing opposition to the “fair war” in Afghanistan. But it’s the passage to diplomatic persuasion, the pragmatic multi-lateralism that leaves the die-hard followers of Bush skeptical, like the former Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, who immediately accused Obama of putting the head of Israel on the counter of the butcher. The president, relying on rationality and reason, preaches collective responsibility and the end of America as a solitary knight, while basically confines himself to dealing with the world he inherited from Bush, which is devastated by environmental degradation, war, and ethical and financial crises, paid so far by “2 trillion dollars.”
In a tragicomic, rambling speech that lasted 100 atrocious minutes, Gaddafi, in front of a dismayed and progressively deserted assembly, did Obama the doubtful favor of calling him “our son,” the son of Africa, and Italy the doubtful honor of pointing to us as an example. Even if few listened to Gaddafi, abandoning the assembly hall en masse, the serious question is: Will the world pay attention to Obama's open hand after rejecting Bush’s fist?
Previous article![]( "Barack, an Awkward Move")
Next article![]( "American Libertarianism is Dancing to the Shock Jocks")
