Theories Without Action

According to recent surveys, Barack Obama has become less popular. One must admit that after reaching new heights, his popularity could only diminish. In fact, with a 53 percent approval rating, many heads of state would be satisfied to have the same score.

It is true that this decrease in popularity is the result of ongoing debate about the introduction of a new health care system. Today, 46 million Americans are deprived of medical coverage. However, elected officials are hesitant about change. The electorate fears higher taxes, as well as government control over the health system; their apprehensions feed on absurd rumors about what might be threatening them. In short, U.S. voters are just as “dumb” as those of other democracies. It’s part of the game!

However, this debate should only concern Americans. In the rest of the world, is Barack Obama still as popular? It’s hard to tell without conducting a worldwide study! In any case, each of us have very different concerns and responses would vary widely among continents. It is possible, however, to compare intentions to actions and theory to practice. An assessment of the actions of the president during his first eight months in office doesn’t look very promising.

Theory was present in Mr. Obama’s speeches in Ankara on April 6, Cairo on June 4 and Accra on July 12. The problem is that these speeches weren’t intended to serve the same purpose. The first was an operation of “seduction,” designed for a strategic ally. The second, in Cairo, under the cover of a warm salute to the Muslims of the world, constituted a vast program to confront the current challenges of several wars, the issue of Palestine, the promotion of democracy, nuclear proliferation, women’s rights and more. The third and last speech was directed specifically toward Africans. As the writer Jean Daniel explained, “He, the African American, authorized by his skin color, his origins and his alliances, to speak freely to people he has essentially always considered to be his true brothers; he has invited them to no longer blame all of their problems on colonialism” (1). For true emancipation, one must overcome the times when one was a victim, according to his Cairo “Program” speech.

The barbarism of colonialism is not an alibi that can justify a setback in development. Barack Obama spoke those words without bringing upon himself the resentment of Africans because he is one of them! Almost a bilateral address from the American giant to the huge African continent, the speech in Accra was aimed solely at Africa and black Africa more specifically. It was neither a universal discourse nor rules for a new program to be implemented; it was only an expression of hope.

In Barack Obama’s speeches, what should be noted is what could, in fact, be part of a program. In Accra, Obama covered his bases with regard to his African-American electors, in preparation for the day when he will once again need them. In Ankara, the U.S. president sought to stay on the side of the West, in case this country of major strategic importance was tempted to move away from it. He did this with ease.

His openness to the Muslim world serves as a testimony. “The United States is not at war with Islam and never will be”; a proposition that is obvious but needed to be advertised nonetheless. Turkey, like other countries, needed to be defended against Western “Islamophobia.” Obama did so, without forgetting to subtly tackle the issue of the Armenian genocide. Also clever, though excessive, was his comparison of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Al Qaeda. Finally, Obama cleverly insisted on describing Turkey as a “secular state with a Muslim majority.” He was thus able to draw support from the Turkish military, upon which the U.S. wants to rely. In Ankara, the speech was an important political maneuver!

In Cairo, the discourse became universal! Its aim was to conquer the heart of the Muslim world while simultaneously making the ambitions of the new administration very clear. It immediately highlighted humanity’s debts to Arab civilization without failing to mention the program; retreat from Iraq, win the war in Afghanistan and settle the issues in the Near East with an emphasis on Palestine’s right to self determination, just as Israel has that same right.

With the understanding that Palestinians must give up violence, Israelis must be just and Arabs in general must help them in the process. Obama’s Cairo speech was general enough to satisfy the audience with talk of democratic progress, women’s full access to education, inter- and intra-religious tolerance in order to bring an end to the bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite, the end of nuclear weapons and a call to peace…

Where do we stand today? Guantanamo will be closed. Unfortunately, the judicial situation of the U.S. military base in Cuba, in addition to that of “enemy combatants,” is preventing Barack Obama from easily bringing things to an end. It isn’t his fault if the U.S. judicial system is so restrictive that the president may be accused, not without justification, by Naomi Wolf and others, of perpetuating the worst methods of his predecessor (2).

Iraq will be evacuated. We can argue about deadlines but it will happen. The promise will be kept, but this was made possible thanks to the “surge” in 2007 that allowed General Petraeus to reverse the situation on the ground.

In Afghanistan, nothing has changed except for an offensive by the Taliban, who are determined to prevent the upcoming elections from happening. As Rachid Khalidi explains, the Obama administration doesn’t seem to understand that foreigners cannot transform Afghanistan by using force (4).

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the White House raised its voice with regard to the colonies, including Jerusalem. This is a new and positive fact but it won’t be enough to make Israel comply. As long as Washington does not impose true sanctions on the Hebrew state, comparable, for example, to those inflicted on Cuba, there isn’t a chance that Israel will obey. However, the U.S. will never take such actions against Israel.

Sanctions against North Korea were voted on by the United Nations but will not be implemented.

Relations with Russia aren’t as good as they were last year. Barack Obama didn’t give up on the risky politics of his predecessor with regard to the Ukraine, Georgia or the anti-missile shield installed in Poland, all of which anger Moscow and are still in place.

The U.S. policy vis-à-vis China remains unclear. The same can be said about Iran. Nobody really knows the direction chosen by Washington. Options remain open, including that of a selective air raid over what was formerly Persia.

Barack Obama, a bi-racial man who became head of state of a nation with a long history of racism, is an exceptional president. He will most likely remain in the books as the man who held the torch of American humanism, with the ability to illuminate the world.

However, eight months after taking office, a number of major tasks at hand for the U.S. president have not yet been taken care of. Without a doubt, the rare complexities of these matters require more time. It is also likely that U.S. presidents are not as powerful as we imagine them to be. Unless, perhaps, Barack Obama is a generous and charismatic idealist, for whom words are more important than action or for whom words are simply a replacement for action, which would be a serious concern.

Footnotes:

(1) Jean Daniel, A Strategy of non-violence, Le Nouvel Observateur, n°2336, 13-19 August 2009, p.38

(2) Naomi Wolf, “Barack Obama has a strong Bush accent” L’Economiste,10 August 2009

(3) “Surge” or the last effort by the Bush administration to stay in Iraq with 30,000 more men.

(4) Interview with Rachid Khalidi, professor at Columbia University, by Corine Lesnes: “Barack Obama has turned a page in Iraq. In Afghanistan, not so much” Le Monde, 13 August 2009