Obama’s 'True Ideals'
While the country came to a standstill for Barack Obama’s visit, Jonas Slaats wonders whether we would do the same for Vladimir Putin. Not that Putin deserves much applause, but where was Obama’s "universal freedom" in Egypt or Iraq?
Jonas Slaats is a theologian, active within the Flemish and international cultural dialogue.
On Wednesday evening, I could not cross the street in Brussels’ city center. The entire area surrounding the royal palace was under police lockdown. Pedestrians had to wait for the presidential convoy. The last time I was stuck in traffic for that exact reason was when I found myself in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, while the former president Asif Ali Zardari was en route.
Half an hour later, I began to question whether we would do the same for Vladimir Putin. Let me clarify that I am not trying to compare Obama with Putin in any way. I would, however, like to comment on the reverence and readiness with which the American president was welcomed. While everyone objects to Putin’s actions and the annexation of Crimea, the Nobel Peace Prize winner has — for years — given permission from the White House for the use of drones in Pakistan, in a considerable violation of state sovereignty that has resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties.
Of course, the U.S. can respond with a catalogue of accountabilities, but so can Putin. Only, in the case of the Russian president, we don’t believe him. Unlike us, he has evil intent. Obama made that extra clear in his speech at the BOZAR (Centre for Fine Arts).
Really? Are we and our political allies so great then?
True Ideals
For his part, President Obama spoke with praise about the Ukrainians and the way in which they had resisted the Russian regime. He was convinced, he said, that "those voices for human dignity and opportunity and individual rights and rule of law — those voices ultimately will triumph." He added, "I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or the size of our economies. I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true; these ideals are universal."
But where were the "true ideals" and counsel for "universal rights" just months before, when Egyptian security forces were responsible for 900 casualties on Rabaa al-Adawiya Square? Not one American dignitary went to lay down a wreath. The violence was feebly condemned, but when Secretary of State John Kerry was in Egypt, he spoke of his continuing support for the military leaders behind the massacre who, "in effect ... were restoring democracy."
That plea for more democracy has also accounted for one of the most extensive human rights violations in the last 15 years: the sacking of Iraq. They went to oust a dictator, contain terrorism, and ensure that (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction did not fall into the wrong hands. That seemingly heroic deed and its consequences cost more than 100,000 people their lives — and I am basing this on the lowest estimated figures. For years, thousands of innocent Iraqis were rounded up without reason and mistreated in prisons such as Abu Ghraib at a time when they were under American authority. On top of that, approximately 4 million people lost their homes or were forced to flee. U.S. policy can hardly be too different from the hard hand of Saddam.
Of course, Obama did withdraw troops from Iraq. He is, after all, different than his predecessor. And it remains a beautiful gesture, when the American president lays down a wreath for those who lost their lives during World War I. But I believe that some would turn in their graves. Especially, those who understand that they were sooner victims of shady geopolitics than heroes in a battle between "good" and "evil."
Jonas Slaats is a theologian, active within the Flemish and international cultural dialogue.
On Wednesday evening, I could not cross the street in Brussels’ city center. The entire area surrounding the royal palace was under police lockdown. Pedestrians had to wait for the presidential convoy. The last time I was stuck in traffic for that exact reason was when I found myself in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, while the former president Asif Ali Zardari was en route.
Half an hour later, I began to question whether we would do the same for Vladimir Putin. Let me clarify that I am not trying to compare Obama with Putin in any way. I would, however, like to comment on the reverence and readiness with which the American president was welcomed. While everyone objects to Putin’s actions and the annexation of Crimea, the Nobel Peace Prize winner has — for years — given permission from the White House for the use of drones in Pakistan, in a considerable violation of state sovereignty that has resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties.
Of course, the U.S. can respond with a catalogue of accountabilities, but so can Putin. Only, in the case of the Russian president, we don’t believe him. Unlike us, he has evil intent. Obama made that extra clear in his speech at the BOZAR (Centre for Fine Arts).
Really? Are we and our political allies so great then?
True Ideals
For his part, President Obama spoke with praise about the Ukrainians and the way in which they had resisted the Russian regime. He was convinced, he said, that "those voices for human dignity and opportunity and individual rights and rule of law — those voices ultimately will triumph." He added, "I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or the size of our economies. I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true; these ideals are universal."
But where were the "true ideals" and counsel for "universal rights" just months before, when Egyptian security forces were responsible for 900 casualties on Rabaa al-Adawiya Square? Not one American dignitary went to lay down a wreath. The violence was feebly condemned, but when Secretary of State John Kerry was in Egypt, he spoke of his continuing support for the military leaders behind the massacre who, "in effect ... were restoring democracy."
That plea for more democracy has also accounted for one of the most extensive human rights violations in the last 15 years: the sacking of Iraq. They went to oust a dictator, contain terrorism, and ensure that (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction did not fall into the wrong hands. That seemingly heroic deed and its consequences cost more than 100,000 people their lives — and I am basing this on the lowest estimated figures. For years, thousands of innocent Iraqis were rounded up without reason and mistreated in prisons such as Abu Ghraib at a time when they were under American authority. On top of that, approximately 4 million people lost their homes or were forced to flee. U.S. policy can hardly be too different from the hard hand of Saddam.
Of course, Obama did withdraw troops from Iraq. He is, after all, different than his predecessor. And it remains a beautiful gesture, when the American president lays down a wreath for those who lost their lives during World War I. But I believe that some would turn in their graves. Especially, those who understand that they were sooner victims of shady geopolitics than heroes in a battle between "good" and "evil."