The Obama Administration’s Mistakes
Published in die Zeit
(Germany) on 4 February 2011
by Martin Klingst (link to original)
(Germany) on 4 February 2011
by Martin Klingst (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Gheanna Emelia.
The U.S. president has a credibility problem: America has been supporting Arab dictators for far too long. Plus, he personally hasn’t lived up to his Cairo speech.
It was pure coincidence that just at the same time Egypt’s demonstrators upset America’s perceptions and strategies for the Middle East, nearly every American ambassador had assembled in Washington for a conference. More than 300 of them, from every major world capital. Only the ambassador to Egypt was missing, as she was urgently needed in Cairo.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had exactly the right message ready and waiting for them. America’s foreign policies would have to become more innovative, more creative — and more proactive. What she didn’t include was that they also had to be a bit more decisive and courageous.
In the many discussions about Egypt there are more than enough know-it-alls accusing the U.S. government of limping along after the fact, blind to growing discontent in the Arab world and oblivious to the social divisions and political repression there. But ask them if they personally saw the revolution coming and all they can do is sheepishly shake their heads.
Nevertheless, it’s a bitter fact that it was Obama, of all people, who delivered the famous Cairo speech to the Islamic world in which he warned Arab dictators and despots to base their power in popular support — and not in corruption and tyranny. And that it was this president who failed to steadfastly support this position both privately and publicly.
And it’s just as bitter that his secretary of state, who authored a book on the importance of human rights and civil society, who bravely spoke up for common people at a global women’s conference in Peking during the 1990s and who promised, as the new secretary of state, to lay the groundwork for these civil duties during her tenure, is Hillary Clinton, who failed to pursue these goals with steadfast determination.
As with all the others, the Obama administration all too quickly subordinated human rights to strategic interests and at best only supported the oppressed behind the scenes, all the while continuing the policies put in place by George W. Bush that froze and in some cases even eliminated financial help for human rights and women’s organizations.
Maybe it’s unfair but Obama, in consciously rejecting George W. Bush’s fatal policies and deciding on aggressively using the rhetoric of democracy, is not seen in the Arab world as an inflexible freedom fighter and defender of the people’s will despite being a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His human rights voice was far too muted and cautious to be heard by the beleaguered masses in the streets of the Middle East.
America is in the midst of a serious dilemma. First, demonstrators from Tunisia to Yemen depend on the only remaining global superpower to influence and change their dictatorial rulers. Second, they refuse to tolerate any U.S. partisanship in their internal political affairs. It’s universally understood that as soon as Washington publicly backs one politician it’s the kiss of death for him. From that point on, he would be seen only as America’s stooge.
And Obama has another problem. Should the Middle East avoid sinking into the chaos of new military dictatorships or theocracies, and should the populist uprisings actually result in political reforms, free elections and eventually evolve into liberal democracies, then the president and his administration must use their influence immediately before the people’s dissatisfaction dissipates. It has to be done despite whatever other priorities there may be. As Mikhail Gorbachev once remarked, “Life punishes those who delay.”
Moreover, the sought-after orderly change can only be realized if the United States can convince its autocratic allies to share their power now and perhaps sooner or later even relinquish it altogether. It might seem schizophrenic, but the United States has to make allies of the old regimes, the royalty and the generals and make them partners in the democratic revolution. The Obama administration knows that, and, in concert with the Egyptian leadership, it is pressing for Mubarak’s immediate resignation and the institution of a political reform process.
Nevertheless, it’s a gigantic challenge at a moment when America’s power in the Middle East continues to wane.
It was pure coincidence that just at the same time Egypt’s demonstrators upset America’s perceptions and strategies for the Middle East, nearly every American ambassador had assembled in Washington for a conference. More than 300 of them, from every major world capital. Only the ambassador to Egypt was missing, as she was urgently needed in Cairo.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had exactly the right message ready and waiting for them. America’s foreign policies would have to become more innovative, more creative — and more proactive. What she didn’t include was that they also had to be a bit more decisive and courageous.
In the many discussions about Egypt there are more than enough know-it-alls accusing the U.S. government of limping along after the fact, blind to growing discontent in the Arab world and oblivious to the social divisions and political repression there. But ask them if they personally saw the revolution coming and all they can do is sheepishly shake their heads.
Nevertheless, it’s a bitter fact that it was Obama, of all people, who delivered the famous Cairo speech to the Islamic world in which he warned Arab dictators and despots to base their power in popular support — and not in corruption and tyranny. And that it was this president who failed to steadfastly support this position both privately and publicly.
And it’s just as bitter that his secretary of state, who authored a book on the importance of human rights and civil society, who bravely spoke up for common people at a global women’s conference in Peking during the 1990s and who promised, as the new secretary of state, to lay the groundwork for these civil duties during her tenure, is Hillary Clinton, who failed to pursue these goals with steadfast determination.
As with all the others, the Obama administration all too quickly subordinated human rights to strategic interests and at best only supported the oppressed behind the scenes, all the while continuing the policies put in place by George W. Bush that froze and in some cases even eliminated financial help for human rights and women’s organizations.
Maybe it’s unfair but Obama, in consciously rejecting George W. Bush’s fatal policies and deciding on aggressively using the rhetoric of democracy, is not seen in the Arab world as an inflexible freedom fighter and defender of the people’s will despite being a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His human rights voice was far too muted and cautious to be heard by the beleaguered masses in the streets of the Middle East.
America is in the midst of a serious dilemma. First, demonstrators from Tunisia to Yemen depend on the only remaining global superpower to influence and change their dictatorial rulers. Second, they refuse to tolerate any U.S. partisanship in their internal political affairs. It’s universally understood that as soon as Washington publicly backs one politician it’s the kiss of death for him. From that point on, he would be seen only as America’s stooge.
And Obama has another problem. Should the Middle East avoid sinking into the chaos of new military dictatorships or theocracies, and should the populist uprisings actually result in political reforms, free elections and eventually evolve into liberal democracies, then the president and his administration must use their influence immediately before the people’s dissatisfaction dissipates. It has to be done despite whatever other priorities there may be. As Mikhail Gorbachev once remarked, “Life punishes those who delay.”
Moreover, the sought-after orderly change can only be realized if the United States can convince its autocratic allies to share their power now and perhaps sooner or later even relinquish it altogether. It might seem schizophrenic, but the United States has to make allies of the old regimes, the royalty and the generals and make them partners in the democratic revolution. The Obama administration knows that, and, in concert with the Egyptian leadership, it is pressing for Mubarak’s immediate resignation and the institution of a political reform process.
Nevertheless, it’s a gigantic challenge at a moment when America’s power in the Middle East continues to wane.