Obama: No Realist He
I'm not going to have enough time to get this all out this morning, but to start, I want to agree with folks like Fareed Zakaria and Zbig Brzezinski that the central dynamic driving global politics today is the "rise of the rest," or the powerful aspiration of the rising peoples and nations of the world to have their shot at a version of what we call the American Dream. That dynamic, which Barack Obama began to address in his Cairo speech, involves many other strands of history -- the end of colonialism and the Cold War, the transformative cultural impact of globalization, rising standards of living around the world, the rapid spread of the Internet and mobile devices putting ever more powerful tools in the hands of the world's people, the emergence of a global Millennial Generation comfortable with these tools, more affluent and educated and globally aware than their parents, eager to seek a better life for themselves and their countries.
Informing and inspiring this global transformation of course is the radical promise of equal opportunity for all offered by the America's founding fathers. Obama discussed it this way in his recent Cairo speech:
....Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
......I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
As Obama alludes to in his speech, the way President Bush attempted to "spread democracy" did much in recent years to undermine and degrade the American-championed vision of democracy just as an enormous part of the world was awakening to its possibilities. This disappointment with the perceived anti-democratic leanings of an American President acting on the global stage -- at this point in history -- itself became a very powerful global dynamic, and was central to the global rejection of Bush and the neocons by peoples and governments around the world.
Another factor in this "rise of the rest" is race, the emergence of non-white European global powers and peoples. Only about a billion of the world's seven billion people are of white European heritage, and there can be little doubt now that this century will see the America-European dominated global order give way to one more representative of the people of the world and its emerging demographic realities. We saw some of the first manifestations of this in the recent G-20 meetings with the discussion of how to reorganize the IMF. The seats at the tables of power will be increasingly occupied by non-white, non-Europeans, which in and of itself will become a powerful visual, or as we call it, "optic," in the emerging global order of the 21st century.
Which brings me to Barack Obama, a self-described racial "mutt," a man who grew up in multiracial societies in Indonesia and Hawaii, and who was elected with the very potent high-tech and democratizing "new tools" of the 21st century. In ways that I think we are only beginning to understand, he has himself become the extraordinary global symbol to those aspiring for more for themselves and their countries everywhere - the story of an outsider, a member of an oppressed class made good; of the overthrown of a oligarchical oppressive power through a popular democratic uprising; of the use of powerful new tools to give regular people a voice in their own futures; and one of the most powerful parts of this story, the emergence of a non-white leader as the leader of the most important nation in the world, at this time of the "rise of the rest."
For all of these reasons I don't think Barack Obama has the option of becoming an advocate of the realist school of American foreign policy. He has already been cast in a different role by history -- one of inspiring champion of all those throughout the world who need someone to speak for them. I will not argue that what we are seeing in Iran today is a direct result of the Cairo speech, or of Obama's direct inspiration to the forces of modernization and democratization inside Iran. But there can be no doubt that Obama's rise has injected a new inspiring dynamic into the rising world, and these forces, unleashed, have the potential to remake the world for good or ill. Our president, as chief global advocate of free and open societies, cannot sit on the sidelines as people attempt to throw off the shackles of old and anti-democratic regimes. This moment is too important, this particular leader too powerful, for America not to ambitiously re-assert itself as the great global champion of universal aspirations of all the world's peoples.
Where this takes us it is too early to tell, but go there we must, as are witnessing the birth of a global "new politics" of the 21st century very different from the global politics of the century just past. And in Barack Obama, this "new politics" has found its first global leader and inspired champion. May he have the courage and vision to seize this global opportunity, as this may be, more so than any other, his ultimate calling.
Cross-posted at the NDN Blog.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So what are you saying he should do?
I say he should get a real energy bill passed, that will make renewable energy cheaper than unmitigated dirty coal -- and license the technology to the best-behaved and most democratic countries at minimal cost. And base that assessment honestly on our values, not on our short-term narrow interests. Then he should use minimal intervention in the ensuing shake-up of global politics.
He's saying we should drop EVERYTHING needing to be done here, ruin all the progress we've made in terms of our relationships with the Middle East and pull another 1953 down on their happy (insert plural adjective here) while we have the chance.
Beware the neo-con in sheep's clothing
PRESIDENT OBAMA.....
I am wondering how you and those idiot GOP'ers think that you know more about what President Obama should or should not do ?
I'm sure you have heard expert journalists and Ambassadors and former military experts from Iran CLEARLY state that President Obama has taken EXACTLY the correct position..
Yet you, who haven't lived in Iran, nor haven't spoken to an expert in the region...c
"unsubstantiated" opinion.
I don't think that this is a proper position for the NEW DEMOCRATIC NETWORK to take.
I also, don't like the overall TONE of disrespect that you are showing for our President.
You have apparently failed to note that the Iranians opposing the election have asked America--nay, have BEGGED America--to STAY OUT of this argument. They have made it quite clear that US interference will completely undermine them as a legitimate Iranian movement. By pushing our big noses in, in other words, we could DESTROY their chances at freedom. Did you miss this? Or do you just not want to hear it?
if rosenberg is arguing for direct action by the us in iran, perhaps that is not wise. democracy must be won by those who seek it. american direct involvement has been a disaster time and time again when revolutions start. it is impossible to pick the "correct" side. either one believes in self-determination or not. giving aid and support is not the same as intervening. i think obama has signaled which side his administration thinks is better, but direct involvement is not the way to acheive anything.
Yeah, that's exactly what we need - to invade another sovereign nation under the guise of "democracy
Since when does anyone on the "left" advocate for an interventionist foreign policy?
Well actually the left has made such an argument in the past-- with regards to the Spanish civil war and opposition to the nazis. (see: abraham lincoln brigade).
It is PRESIDENT Barack Obama. He is not just some guy who is sitting in the Oval office so learn some respect. You extended that respect to President Bush but oddly enough in the dozen times you mentioned our President you never referred to him by his proper title.
Thank you.
I think OBAMA is doing a great job - I was hoping he would go it slowly when taking on IRAN. And he's done just that. He had briefed the media regarding that during this time, it is BEST that the US stay out of rallying around ANY political party knowing full well the Iranians are quite aware of our MEDDLING in the MOSSEDEGH caper in 1953 where the CIA had a hand in removing the then president.
We must be focused and stick to our "guns" of RESPECTING each nation's political decision NO MATTER HOW IT COMES OUT!
- - - But just for the record: Haven't heard a thing about how MOUSAVI differs from AHMADINAJAD anyway! The MSM would do well to bring this out. NEUTRAL & PATIENT 'til I hear more.
Mousavi is of the revolutionary generation, wants to invest oil money in infrastructure and such to provide opportunity for the people, and has the backing of Rafsanjani and the business class. Ahmadinejad is of the Iraq war generation, wants to give the oil money to the people by subsidies and direct distribution, and has the backing of Khamenei and the military. They both nominally want to continue the spirit of 1908 and the Islamic Republic, but one places it at risk of being subverted by money whereas the other places it at risk of being subverted by loss of legitimacy and dependence on force.
Wow. Two well-established auto-makers are tanking. There's a foreclosure epidemic going on. The economy could be teetering on the brink of disaster. Etc., etc. etc. And now is a good time for Obama to forget all of that and be a "global leader"?!
Hey, he inpsires people and that is good. He inspired me. But wouldn't taking on the WORLD'S problems distract him just a little from the ones we have here? Not to mention earning us more enemies (read problems) if things don't turn out to our liking.
It's too bad this global "new politics" only extends to non-Western nations. If it really were global, the president of the United States might want to put pressure on "our gallant ally," Britain, to free the six occupied counties of Ireland and create (at last) a 32-county republic. Our day will come, but it can come sooner than later if the U.S. acts.
No thank you, I'm from the Republic and I can assure you that I do not want my taxes doubled to subsidise the North. No working person supports it when they find out how much it would cost.
It is a province that gets far more money from Britain that it creates. Not sure they would be very happy with the loss of their free health and dental care either. Only the poorest would qualify for a medical card.
Plus their lower prices means that we can go up there and shop on the cheap. A mutual friendship is best for all. Let the Brits keep paying for their imperial endeavors as a reminder of what not to do in the future.
I could not disagree more. Until a country asks for the help of the U.S., the U.S. should - and must - keep its nose OUT. The U.S. is not the global police - we are not the global policy-maker and we must recognize this and learn to keep our place as a contributing member of the world.
Yes, President Obama and the U.S. have an important role to play in the world both in terms of leadership and in setting an example. But the leadership must be tempered with knowing when to stop and mind our own business.
Other countries have a right, and a need, to settle their own political issues without U.S. interference.
I agree with you 100%. Friends I have in Iran are grateful Obama is not speaking out and causing more divide as it will only make the hardliners more anti-USA and give the image that the opposition party is just another American puppet like the Shah.
What would they think if Obama said "God is great"? Everyone would recognize it as a translation of the same slogan that Iranians shout from the rooftops in defiance.
the LESS obama says and does the better, AFTER the dust has cleared in a month or so and we see the lay of the land, THEN he can make bolder moves, not now. keep the CIA on lockdown and attend to other affairs.
Bolder? When the dust settles? LOL!
We have to remember that Obama's mojo from the beginning of his career derives from his ability to inspire people toward self empowerment through community activism. This is what true democracy is all about. True democracy is not accomplished in any nation by politicians, governments, agencies, armies or diplomatic intervention. We have witnessed time and time again the failures in our government's installation of leadership in Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere only to be met with further chaos and oppression of the true will of their people.
Lasting democracy in Iran, Iraq, China (for that matter) will only arise from change from within. It may be painful and it may be protracted, but it will never endure unless their people achieve it for themselves.
Brilliantly said.
Agreed. We've all seen America's history of misplaced, misunderstood or misinformed actions and the damage each has done and continues to do to others. The best-intended bull in a china shop is nevertheless dangerously bovine. It is charming and heartening, for a change, to watch a reflective person holding the reins of power. Our approach, throughout history, seems to have been to understand that every problem in the world is a nail, and we have only a hammer. Maybe once, calm and reasoned use of strength will replace recklessness.
Well said. Like the metaphor "every problem in the world is a nail, and we have only a hammer"
...and Germany and Japan and Italy too.
Sorry Simon, I like you but even though your suggestions are well thought out, they are more appropriate to a different game altogether. The President is playing chess. Your take on this situation is more appropriate to checkers. The trick is to know when to make things happen and when to let things happen on their own. If the USA intervenes at this point, who will perceive it as anything other than direct interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation? Just as the international community let us get rid of Bush ourselves, we must let the Iranians overthrow tyranny themselves. That is the only way they will ever truly own that victory. President Obama is doing exactly the right thing. Watching and waiting. The Iranian people will find their power and choose their own destiny.
There is also the idea that you should not do things that are counter productive just because they make you feel good, or they look manly. The previous administration continually pushed for Regime change in Iran. Interference at this point would be seen more as furthering that policy rather than supporting the cause of the protesters. The government in Iran is probably missing Bush right now. Once Georgie rattled the Sabers, they could claim that the protesters were merely tools of the CIA.
The Republicans do not want Akmadinejad to lose. They need him as a boogeyman. No wonder they are calling for the intervention of America into the internal politics of Iran.
Interesting insight.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
