Obama's speech-writer stands alone

(New York, USA)

The United Nations has long staggered between the pillar of laughing-stock and the post of pariah within the international community. Speeches from US presidents do little to help that image.

On Wednesday US president Obama addressed the “grubby elected members” for the first time since he came to power. For those of us who look to Obama to correct the mistakes of former US presidents the ambiguity created between the tired rhetoric and the stated facts was worrying to say the least.

One of the most fundamental changes that is required – and one that the UN has never facilitated – is America’s self-appraisal as the world leader. Obama appears to want to perpetuate this self-appointed role:

“These expectations ... are rooted ... in the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.”

He also seems surprised that America is so unpopular in the world, and unrealistic as to the causes of this lack of popularity:

“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”

While I completely agree that there exists an unfortunate “reflexive anti-Americanism”, I must insist that America’s position in the world opinion has nothing to do with “misperceptions and misinformation” – it is a direct result of foreign invasions, terrorist activities, a refusal to mend their ecological ways, a tendency to change the moral code depending on resources and money and the constant lack of respect that American citizens show people of other cultures. By “American citizens” of course I am not simply referring to a dozen people that I may have encountered over the last year, but to individual representatives of the American community such as may be found in the armed forces.

Obama as an individual may not be guilty of any of the atrocities – verbal or physical – committed by his fellow Americans, but he could be accused of offering words with no substance:

“But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

“The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child anywhere - can enrich our world, or impoverish it.”

This is the stuff of rookie speech-writers, B-movie script-writers and satirical cartoons. It is the words of a man who would have us believe that we reached a critical moment like no other critical moment before, that everything hinges on this moment in time. It is a common mistake made by men who are given too much power and therefore believe themselves to be more important in a historical sense than they really are – it is the mistake of the man who believes that this moment is critical because it is the moment of his own speech.

In fairness to Obama, that is probably a redundant criticism – we are, after all, talking about an American president talking to a bunch of self-important but largely irrelevant suits and ties.

During the speech Obama lists the changes he has made and what his government has achieved; no problems there. There is no denying that he has made some key changes to the way his country is behaving in public, and the changes are to be welcomed. Unfortunately he returns far too often to words that are empty of anything but threat:

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone.”

Here Obama shows himself to be seriously misguided when it comes to accepting what the speech-writers give him. The first part of that statement is wrong – nobody is angry that America apparently acted alone, they are angry that Western governments gang up on the rest of the world. And the second part of the statement is offensive in the extreme – it is a return to Reagan and both Bushes, to the belief that America is the sheriff of the world. It is a return to the delusion that America is the solution, when in fact it is the problem. It is a return to the time when America provided the problem in order to be the solution (Nicaragua, Colombia and so on). And it is a perfect example of the madman becoming the psychiatrist in order to avoid being accused.

The proof that the emptiest of his words carries the most threat comes in the following statements:

“No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.
“Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.”

It is obvious that he is referring to the two enemies à la mode, North Korea and Iran, and sure enough his next paragraph contains threats against those two countries. I use the word “threats” because he is continuing the sabre-rattling of his predecessor, and if America were to invade the only people to suffer would again be the innocent masses. A bit like Iraq and Afghanistan, but also similar to the way in which ordinary Americans suffer the “reflexive anti-Americanism” caused by actions of successive leaders. The irony of all three paragraphs (the two quoted and the one I have simply referred to) appears to be lost on him, especially as he managed keep a straight face when he said the following (a statement which comes between the two previous quoted segments):
“We must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist.”
Is that so?

The need for a heavy sense of irony continues throughout the speech:

“That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, no one can be -- there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves.”

Yes, Bush, Blair and Aznar, you have indeed.

Perhaps I am being harsh on the man – although perhaps it is our duty to be harsh on people who set themselves up to “lead the world”. Obama himself warns against the perceived importance of words and the true relevance of actions:

“We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.”

Fair enough. And as I have already conceded, Obama’s decisions as president have been good, not least on the question of Israel:

“we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Perhaps Obama is still the good man I believed him to be. His script-writer, however, should go and find a job somewhere where men of few talents are appreciated beyond their worth. He could try the UN.