Paris, Obama’s Absence Helps Europe

After the criticism Americans received, we get their mea culpa. "We should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there [at the demonstration in Paris]” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told the press. President Barack Obama, he added, would have wanted to participate. But why didn't he go? Earnest provided the following cover: Obama would have wanted to participate, but the preparations only began Friday night. In other words, it would have been difficult to implement the necessary security measures required for Obama to appear without interfering with parade arrangements. Earnest knows something about excuses, perhaps too much. Obama’s absence, along with that of his vice president, Joseph Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry, was noticed more than the presence of other world leaders. It would not do much good to highlight that among those absent, to name one, stood out a certain Vladimir Putin. There is no doubt that the United States should have been present at the highest level, rather than sending Ambassador Jane Hartley to represent the country. (Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris for meetings with representatives of the security services.)

But where was Obama? It appears that he stayed at the White House with his family. Biden was at home in Delaware, and Secretary Kerry was on a visit to India. From New Delhi, Kerry specifically branded the criticism directed at the Obama administration as sophistry. During a press conference, Secretary Kerry emphasized that the president and members of his administration had been in contact with the French authorities almost immediately after the first attack and had offered Paris assistance with intelligence. Accordingly, Kerry announced that he would be in France on Thursday for meetings on how to fight back terrorism. Even the Elise, to tell the truth, defended Obama.* A high-ranking official told CNN that the president was "very present" ever since the attacks happened, and that he was the first leader to phone President Francoise Hollande. The official added that the visit to Washington's French embassy "was a touching moment of solidarity."

Republicans sharply criticized the administration's decision not to send anyone to Paris. "The absence is symbolic of the lack of American leadership on the world stage, and it is dangerous," said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. "The attack on Paris, just like previous assaults on Israel and other allies, is an attack on our shared values," he added.

"It was a mistake," said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, adding insult to injury. "I understand that when the president travels, he brings with him a security and communications package which is intense. And I understand you drop that into the middle of something like this, it could be disruptive. There’s a plethora of people they could have sent,” he maintained. Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner, maintained in an email message that, "The French should feel the same support from all freedom-loving peoples today. But this did not happen."

But let's set aside for a moment the domestic polemics of stars and stripes and concentrate on Europe. Obama's absence strengthens Europe. I can explain easily. The old continent, faced with the tragedy of the Paris attacks, has demonstrated that it knows how to react with indignation. Now it needs to follow up by making strong decisions for the protection of liberty and security. Europe, left without Washington's friendly hand, can show its claws and prove its strength once and for all. What would match unanimous intention and firm political determination? In short, now is the time for leaders. And character. Europe can claim a leading role in the world and get the respect it demands only if it unites. If it does not seize this opportunity, it will remain a grandfather who does not know how to walk by himself and will always need America's hand. That is why Europe should thank Obama.

*Editor’s Note: Elise is a reference to the French Parliament.