Obama and the Rogues
Published in die Zeit
(Germany) on 12 March 2009
by Josef Joffe (link to original)
The U.S. president suddenly wants to negotiate with fundamentalists and dictators. History, however, shows that that doesn’t always result in reforming the bad guys or turning Americans into angels of peace.
Every four years America rediscovers itself; the revolution is part and parcel of a nation that fled the Old World and now carries the words “Novus Ordo Seclorum” on its Great Seal – “New Order of the Ages.” Barack Obama’s revolution therefore carries on the tradition reflected in Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” Kennedy’s “New Frontier,” and Reagan’s “Good Morning, America.”
During his exactly fifty days in office, Obama has been changing things everywhere. The headlines read “Obama wants to cooperate with the moderate Taliban,” “New accents in the trans-Atlantic dialogue,” “New feelers going out to Moscow,” “Emissaries being sent to Syria,” and “Obama wants a dialogue with Tehran.” The dimensions of a New Order are visible in foreign policy changes and celebrated with the words on the Great Seal.
But there’s seldom very much that's actually new in world politics, a lesson every president has had to learn. “Let us begin anew,” Kennedy called out to the Soviets in January 1961. In June he returned in a fury from his first meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna and, in answer to the Soviet’s muscle flexing, called on Congress to give him an additional $35 billion (in today’s dollars) in defense spending.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter came on saying he wanted to “get rid of the exaggerated fear of communism.” In actuality, the rearming of Europe (and nearly the development of the neutron bomb) came to pass during his administration. SALT II, the reduction of nuclear weapons, was shelved after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, causing the boycott of the Olympic games in Moscow.
And George W? In the year 2000, he trumpeted of America’s foreign policy, “If we are arrogant, they will blame us; if we are humble, they will welcome us.” The rest is history: 9/11, two wars, and exactly the same arrogance in dealing with others that he warned of during his campaign.
And now Obama. The world worships him as they worshiped the young Kennedy after 1961. They seem almost relieved, after George W. Bush, to have a U.S. president they can love. A colleague of mine at der Spiegel magazine compared Obama’s eloquence with Angela Merkel’s: 5 to 1 in favor of Mr. O.
But it goes deeper than that. Obama promises transcendence, the conquest of ugliness and of the traditional. John F. Kennedy also promised that after eight drab Eisenhower years. Jimmy Carter wanted to set the right tone with his morality in the wake of Nixon, Watergate and years of icy Realpolitik. To the Germans and to Europeans in general, this political pathos, this Messianism every four years has become foreign, even embarrassing. We’re just happy to have survived the mass-murder Messianism of the 20th Century at all.
But this experience doesn’t stop the Europeans from cheering a prophet from a foreign land, especially since Obama promises to resolve so many eternal conflicts, from Russia to Iran and Old Europe to Afghanistan. We wish him all the luck in the world because his success would be a blessing. But precisely for that reason we must remain sober. The world’s political conflicts cannot be solved by nice words alone.
The Middle East: Hillary Clinton just returned from her exploratory journey. She struck all the right chords: Palestinian statehood and support for President Mahmoud Abbas. But in Washington, those old hands who plowed the field for George W. Bush are only willing to point to the hideous trash they unearthed. A two-state solution is impossible – not with Netanyahu, not with Hamas, not with Abbas-without-a-country and not with Iran’s veto power. Why does Clinton pretend a solution is possible? Because the world demands American activism, and that’s why Obama chose George Mitchell as special envoy: He will fight the battles while she takes care of the easy work.
Iran: After Bush and Bill Clinton, there's suddenly an outstretched American hand. But the regional religious leader, Ali Khamenei, is already complaining that Obama is on the same wrong path as Bush was. President Ahmedinejad insists America must first shake off its “satanic” character. Of course that’s all revolutionary rhetoric, but behind it there are genuine interests. Iran wants nuclear weapons and dominance in the Middle East; the United States wants to remain the hegemonic power there and stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Can such an enemy be coerced with pleasantries – can he be killed with kindness? Let’s not forget that a revolutionary regime, like Iran’s, that can’t pacify the population with material goods needs an external enemy just as much as a drunkard needs his bottle. “The honeypot Obama is offering,” says an veteran Iran-watcher, “is just as dangerous for Iran’s regime as Bush’s threats were.”
Syria: Here, the offer to negotiate is supposed to free Syria from Iran’s embrace. But how? With the return of the Golan Heights? Syria could have had that from Israel twenty or thirty years ago - all they had to do was promise total peace. But perhaps the Alawi dictatorship, supported only by a tiny minority, isn’t interested in peace. Staying in power necessitates having enemies. “Greater Syria” would like to control Lebanon more than they would like to be friends with America. An end to isolation plus a promise of investment? That, speculates an expert on Assad who teaches in Washington, couldn’t sit well with the dictator, because the hated Sunni businessmen would profit most from such a scenario.
Russia: The friendliest sounds of all come across the Atlantic from here. But Obama’s overtures weren’t enough to halt the Moscow-choreographed “throw-the-Americans-out-of-Kyrgyzstan” show. Putin isn’t considering granting independence to the breakaway province of Georgia. The Kremlin is only waiting for poverty-stricken Ukraine to fall into its lap like an overripe fruit.
Russia, as it always has, wants to surround itself with its own sphere of influence and a veto over Western strategic decisions – just as America, as it always has, opposes that. Will Obama sacrifice the missile shield in eastern Europe? Most certainly, provided Russia stops opposing meaningful sanctions on Iran. But Moscow would rather have a friendly Iran with its gas and oil reserves than a non-nuclear Iran. What’s the purpose of the “reset button” Secretary Clinton gave Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva?
Basically, nations don’t disagree because they don’t understand one another, and they don’t understand each other because they disagree, mainly on the basic facts. That’s why the dialogues Obama offers are just a first step, though an all-important one, that will enhance America’s foreign policy chances despite all the inherent problems. America is still the most powerful nation on earth. But in contrast to Bush, Obama is returning an aura of legitimacy to the superpower.
Beyond the usual suspects in Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang, the rest of the world doesn’t view Obama as being selfish or having bad intentions. Trust is capital that pays off in influence. Under Bush, America was so often isolated and alone; under Obama it can credibly operate in the public interest again and isolate the world’s troublemakers.
In any case, America will have an easier time opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions in concert with Europe – unlike Bush, who treated the assistance of the European Union troika with indifference and at times even outright contempt. Whoever offers Iran a friendly hand and gets nothing but hate in return will have an easier time organizing a coalition of sanctions against it. Whoever offers Russia freedom from a U.S. missile shield on its borders in return for pressure on Iran will have at least a chance for cooperation. And even if it doesn’t work, he will at least have shown his noble intentions.
“Yes, we can” isn’t a magic formula for foreign policy, but after eight years of George W. Bush, Obama can bring some reality into play. He will lend an ear and listen; he would sooner use the mighty power of his country for the good of others than against them. That’s good for America and good for the rest of the world.
Every four years America rediscovers itself; the revolution is part and parcel of a nation that fled the Old World and now carries the words “Novus Ordo Seclorum” on its Great Seal – “New Order of the Ages.” Barack Obama’s revolution therefore carries on the tradition reflected in Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” Kennedy’s “New Frontier,” and Reagan’s “Good Morning, America.”
During his exactly fifty days in office, Obama has been changing things everywhere. The headlines read “Obama wants to cooperate with the moderate Taliban,” “New accents in the trans-Atlantic dialogue,” “New feelers going out to Moscow,” “Emissaries being sent to Syria,” and “Obama wants a dialogue with Tehran.” The dimensions of a New Order are visible in foreign policy changes and celebrated with the words on the Great Seal.
But there’s seldom very much that's actually new in world politics, a lesson every president has had to learn. “Let us begin anew,” Kennedy called out to the Soviets in January 1961. In June he returned in a fury from his first meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna and, in answer to the Soviet’s muscle flexing, called on Congress to give him an additional $35 billion (in today’s dollars) in defense spending.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter came on saying he wanted to “get rid of the exaggerated fear of communism.” In actuality, the rearming of Europe (and nearly the development of the neutron bomb) came to pass during his administration. SALT II, the reduction of nuclear weapons, was shelved after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, causing the boycott of the Olympic games in Moscow.
And George W? In the year 2000, he trumpeted of America’s foreign policy, “If we are arrogant, they will blame us; if we are humble, they will welcome us.” The rest is history: 9/11, two wars, and exactly the same arrogance in dealing with others that he warned of during his campaign.
And now Obama. The world worships him as they worshiped the young Kennedy after 1961. They seem almost relieved, after George W. Bush, to have a U.S. president they can love. A colleague of mine at der Spiegel magazine compared Obama’s eloquence with Angela Merkel’s: 5 to 1 in favor of Mr. O.
But it goes deeper than that. Obama promises transcendence, the conquest of ugliness and of the traditional. John F. Kennedy also promised that after eight drab Eisenhower years. Jimmy Carter wanted to set the right tone with his morality in the wake of Nixon, Watergate and years of icy Realpolitik. To the Germans and to Europeans in general, this political pathos, this Messianism every four years has become foreign, even embarrassing. We’re just happy to have survived the mass-murder Messianism of the 20th Century at all.
But this experience doesn’t stop the Europeans from cheering a prophet from a foreign land, especially since Obama promises to resolve so many eternal conflicts, from Russia to Iran and Old Europe to Afghanistan. We wish him all the luck in the world because his success would be a blessing. But precisely for that reason we must remain sober. The world’s political conflicts cannot be solved by nice words alone.
The Middle East: Hillary Clinton just returned from her exploratory journey. She struck all the right chords: Palestinian statehood and support for President Mahmoud Abbas. But in Washington, those old hands who plowed the field for George W. Bush are only willing to point to the hideous trash they unearthed. A two-state solution is impossible – not with Netanyahu, not with Hamas, not with Abbas-without-a-country and not with Iran’s veto power. Why does Clinton pretend a solution is possible? Because the world demands American activism, and that’s why Obama chose George Mitchell as special envoy: He will fight the battles while she takes care of the easy work.
Iran: After Bush and Bill Clinton, there's suddenly an outstretched American hand. But the regional religious leader, Ali Khamenei, is already complaining that Obama is on the same wrong path as Bush was. President Ahmedinejad insists America must first shake off its “satanic” character. Of course that’s all revolutionary rhetoric, but behind it there are genuine interests. Iran wants nuclear weapons and dominance in the Middle East; the United States wants to remain the hegemonic power there and stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Can such an enemy be coerced with pleasantries – can he be killed with kindness? Let’s not forget that a revolutionary regime, like Iran’s, that can’t pacify the population with material goods needs an external enemy just as much as a drunkard needs his bottle. “The honeypot Obama is offering,” says an veteran Iran-watcher, “is just as dangerous for Iran’s regime as Bush’s threats were.”
Syria: Here, the offer to negotiate is supposed to free Syria from Iran’s embrace. But how? With the return of the Golan Heights? Syria could have had that from Israel twenty or thirty years ago - all they had to do was promise total peace. But perhaps the Alawi dictatorship, supported only by a tiny minority, isn’t interested in peace. Staying in power necessitates having enemies. “Greater Syria” would like to control Lebanon more than they would like to be friends with America. An end to isolation plus a promise of investment? That, speculates an expert on Assad who teaches in Washington, couldn’t sit well with the dictator, because the hated Sunni businessmen would profit most from such a scenario.
Russia: The friendliest sounds of all come across the Atlantic from here. But Obama’s overtures weren’t enough to halt the Moscow-choreographed “throw-the-Americans-out-of-Kyrgyzstan” show. Putin isn’t considering granting independence to the breakaway province of Georgia. The Kremlin is only waiting for poverty-stricken Ukraine to fall into its lap like an overripe fruit.
Russia, as it always has, wants to surround itself with its own sphere of influence and a veto over Western strategic decisions – just as America, as it always has, opposes that. Will Obama sacrifice the missile shield in eastern Europe? Most certainly, provided Russia stops opposing meaningful sanctions on Iran. But Moscow would rather have a friendly Iran with its gas and oil reserves than a non-nuclear Iran. What’s the purpose of the “reset button” Secretary Clinton gave Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva?
Basically, nations don’t disagree because they don’t understand one another, and they don’t understand each other because they disagree, mainly on the basic facts. That’s why the dialogues Obama offers are just a first step, though an all-important one, that will enhance America’s foreign policy chances despite all the inherent problems. America is still the most powerful nation on earth. But in contrast to Bush, Obama is returning an aura of legitimacy to the superpower.
Beyond the usual suspects in Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang, the rest of the world doesn’t view Obama as being selfish or having bad intentions. Trust is capital that pays off in influence. Under Bush, America was so often isolated and alone; under Obama it can credibly operate in the public interest again and isolate the world’s troublemakers.
In any case, America will have an easier time opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions in concert with Europe – unlike Bush, who treated the assistance of the European Union troika with indifference and at times even outright contempt. Whoever offers Iran a friendly hand and gets nothing but hate in return will have an easier time organizing a coalition of sanctions against it. Whoever offers Russia freedom from a U.S. missile shield on its borders in return for pressure on Iran will have at least a chance for cooperation. And even if it doesn’t work, he will at least have shown his noble intentions.
“Yes, we can” isn’t a magic formula for foreign policy, but after eight years of George W. Bush, Obama can bring some reality into play. He will lend an ear and listen; he would sooner use the mighty power of his country for the good of others than against them. That’s good for America and good for the rest of the world.