It was stunning that a day after Salon.com lead with a headline asking 'Has Obama Become a Joke?' the Nobel Prize Committee decided to answer with their response 'he is and we are' and awarded him probably one of the least deserved awards in the history of awards next to maybe Crash winning Best Picture back in 05'. While there have been less deserving recipients in the past, Arafat and Kissinger arguably were warmonger's rather than peacemakers when they received their respective prizes, and Al Gore won it basically for making a movie, this award was still at the very best premature and at the very worst crass and opportunistic. When asked why he was not going to run for office Martin Sheen, star of the West Wing answered "I merely play a politician on tv. You are mistaking celebrity for credibility". It is clear with its recent recipients that the Nobel Committee is making similar choices. While some could make the argument that in pursuing a more multilateral foreign policy, trying to wind down two wars, trying to stop the torture and abuses of those in US custody, working towards a Mideast peace settlement, stopping proliferation, and at least acknowledging global warming that President Obama is on the right path. Yet this argument is voided when we realize Obama won way back in February before he even had a chance to start even these basic initiatives. Basically the Nobel committee is admitting they are awarding this on the basis of hope and a hunch rather than substantial achievement.
To his credit the President seemed flustered and mortified that he won, though obviously not enough to humbly refuse the prize and its considerably cash to a more deserving nominee (Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe and Moussavi of Iran come to mind for actually risking their lives to fight for peace and justice against tyrannical regimes). Yet one also suspects he knew this reward would create more political problems without any tangible political benefits. For a guy whom everyone expects to fix the economy, end two wars, fix healthcare, all while still balancing the budget and stopping climate change, this prize is just another burden forced onto his back. One suspects the President yelling to Michelle in a rare moment of privacy 'god damn now I gotta create world peace too this job is starting to get on my fucking nerves'.
The worst part about this though is that now the President is stymied from conducting a foreign policy based in part around the ideals of realism. Obama has always had this tension between the idealistic hawkish liberals in his circle, from Samantha Power to Susan Rice to Hillary Clinton who all think American power can be applied to stop humanitarian crises and to ensure that the values of freedom and human rights are obeyed (or else!), and this sense some of us had that yes the realists are finally back in charge. Obama's inaction on Afghanistan reflects this tension with his realists like Joe Biden and General Jones arguing that we need to declare victory and cut our losses and the idealist wing which still feels that America can reverse two millenia of Afghan culture by liberating the country from extreme Islam and patriarchy. The Nobel prize will now literally and figuratively weigh above Obama as he makes these decisions possibly affecting his ability to think realistically about US policy when he has all these ideals invested in his success. It is hard to be the Machiavellian statesmen frankly a President ought to be when considering questions of war and peace when the world is declaring you the second coming and investing you with superhero like abilities to solve problems with simple willpower. The Nobel Committee might have thought they were investing in the future by granting Obama this prize, but instead they have not only placed him on a pedestal they have also shot him in the foot. And there is nothing peaceful about that.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Thoughts on Ambassador Bolton Speech
Last night I had the pleasure of attending a speech and Q&A with former US Representative to the United Nations John Bolton (he technically was never an ambassador since he was never confirmed by the Senate but we shall refer to him as 'ambassdor' since he was in all but name and no doubt in his mind since he supports the unitary executive but anyway) and while the reception where I met him and shook his hand was quite enjoyable where he appeared to be reasoned, engaging and funny, the forum at which he spoke was a little too raucous and right-slanted for the intellectual engagement that its location at the U of C merited. The reception was held at Hillel House since the event was cosponsored by the Chicago Friends of Israel and the Chicago Republicans (it seemed many of the people at the event held dual memberships) where I feasted on some corn beef and rye sandwiches and Sprite Zero. I had the privilege of meeting the Ambassador but was unable to ask him any questions either at this reception or at the event since he was surrounded and hounded by so many young neocons eager to get their picture with him. Also present were a lot of Cook County Republicans running Pyrrhic campaigns for local office and Professor Charles Lipson. A Rabbi asked me if I was a Jew or a Republican, when I answered neither he seemed a little confused but welcomed me all the same.
The event itself consisted of a speech followed by a Q&A and was in a packed Mandel Hall. Bolton was introduced by my good friend and radio show co-host Tex Dozier who is now the President of the UofC Republicans, and a young woman who was the President of the Chicago Friends of Israel. A right wing businessman and columnist was selected as the moderator for the eventual Q&A. Bolton went right into a blistering assault on the Obama administration making jokes about the peace prize (see my next blog post for my own take) and seemingly altering between calling him an appeaser and a 'post-American' president. While Bolton did not intend to be racist in that pronouncement, he claimed other Democrats from Michael Dukakis to John Kerry were also 'post-American' one still somehow felt that this was an awkward term to apply to the country's first African American president. He attacked Obama for thinking globally, for rejecting the concept of American exceptionalism, and for acting multilaterally to confront security crises. He insulted a few moves I have discussed including the administrations vacillating on Afghanistan and its capitulation to Russia in E. Europe over the missile shield (can't say I disagreed with Bolton on those points) but he was broadly off the mark on the Mideast Peace Process.
Here he claimed that Obama accepted the European viewpoint that Al Qaeda and other Islamist radicals would go away if we simply abandoned Israel. While this may be the view of some foreign policy scholars it is a view President Obama has never expressed. I was tempted to ironically yell 'you lie!' at that point in the speech but my sense of civility stayed me. He went on to argue that the disappearance of Israel would only embolden Islamic radicals and would not make America safer. He made this point in spite of the broad lack of evidence that President Obama has ever considered this an option or that anyone in mainstream American politics has ever said anything other than a consistent pro-Israel line of reasoning. That President Obama asked the Israeli's to stop West Bank settlements without really asking concessions on the part of the Palestinians was a valid point of criticism that Bolton advanced, but in no way does this prove the administration by supporting the two state solution has anything but the long-term security of Israel in mind when most long term thinkers, including most within Israel, think that a just settlement for the Palestinian people is in fact within Israel's long term security interests.
My second major reservation is this idea of 'post-Americanism', if anything President Obama is continuing the exceptionalism begun under his predecessor in far too many areas from continuing the practice of torture under rendition, moving prisoners overseas to be tortured, holding detainees illegally, approving unilateral military actions to stop terrorists, maintaining the Bush doctrine of preventative strikes in the face of terrorists threats, etc. Also 'post-Americanism' as Bolton defines it seems to be favoring collective security, working with allies, and forming a global consensus before undertaking US geopolitical action. This seems to be the strategy that FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and to a lesser extent even Reagan followed when fighting the Cold War. NATO seems to be according to Bolton's logic, a 'post-American' institution since it too is not under the jurisdiction of our constitution and is an institution we surrender sovereignty too. The UN is another such institution. Bolton contradicted himself when citing Iran's persistent violation of UN resolutions as a reason to support US/Israeli action against that nation while also mocking President Obama for trying to achieve peace through 'an ineffective security council that gives veto power to America's foes'. So what is it Bolton is the US an exceptional power that should act unilaterally and that never surrenders its sovereignty to alliances and collective security organizations or are we a leader that relies on those organizations? Are they relevant or irrelevant?
Sadly those questions were never asked since Sparticists and far out leftists asked incredibly stupid questions that gave Bolton reasonable cause to shut them down from his pulpit. Questions like 'the US has abused its exceptionalism by bombing Japan' gave Bolton the fodder he needed to paint his opponents as naive at best or anti-American at worst. A few thoughtful comments came from a Palestinian student who was nearly rudely shouted down by some woman in the audience but asked a reasonable question contradicting Bolton's assertion that Palestine has never existed ("it did in 1948 when my father lived there"-oh snap!) and his idiotic 'three state solution' whereby Jordan and Egypt absorb the Palestinians. This solution was probably the most bizarre portion of the speech generating the most critical questions. If the two state solution is infeasible and unjust how is this one any better? He basically conceded that its not any more feasible but is the better of the two fantasy scenarios for reasons he asserted but never explained. Also history seems to demonstrate that Jordon which fought a devastating civil war with the Palestinians when it occupied the West Bank and Egypt which has internal issues with the Muslim Brotherhood and would not want to take Hamas controlled Gaza in on top of that, have zero incentive to do this, thus rendering Bolton's 'bold' solution rather suspect.
Lastly the most disappointing part of the evening was that Bolton never addressed his actually interesting and innovative ideas about UN reform, never discussed his time there, the polarization of Senate confirmations, issues about his legal opinions regarding the advise and consent clause, the unitary executive, and torture. He did not address gays in the military (a question I would have asked him) or non military solutions to the Iranian crisis. Moreover the crowd was full of non-University Republicans that were quite rowdy and rude shouting down questioners they disagreed with, preventing dissenting views from being heard, and really engaging in a discussion that was partisan and skewed and not worthy of the intellectual tradition of the University. The night was certainly interesting but I was hoping for a much more engaging talk instead of an hour of right wing talking points followed by reasonable questioners being heckled into submission either by the speakers or his cronies in the audience. The moderator was hardly that but rather a right wing cheerleader that did little to keep his peers civil and in fact engaged in shouting some questioners down. This could have been a much better event and I wish Bolton had discussed those other ideas which would have made for a more interesting debate and back and forth. It was an event that I would argue changed view minds and only retrenched people in the camps they came in with. This is ironic since Tex and other College Republicans charged James Carville's appearance freshmen year with the same (equally valid) points that it was not in the spirit of the University but rather a partisan event. This too was a partisan event, not a dialogue.
The event itself consisted of a speech followed by a Q&A and was in a packed Mandel Hall. Bolton was introduced by my good friend and radio show co-host Tex Dozier who is now the President of the UofC Republicans, and a young woman who was the President of the Chicago Friends of Israel. A right wing businessman and columnist was selected as the moderator for the eventual Q&A. Bolton went right into a blistering assault on the Obama administration making jokes about the peace prize (see my next blog post for my own take) and seemingly altering between calling him an appeaser and a 'post-American' president. While Bolton did not intend to be racist in that pronouncement, he claimed other Democrats from Michael Dukakis to John Kerry were also 'post-American' one still somehow felt that this was an awkward term to apply to the country's first African American president. He attacked Obama for thinking globally, for rejecting the concept of American exceptionalism, and for acting multilaterally to confront security crises. He insulted a few moves I have discussed including the administrations vacillating on Afghanistan and its capitulation to Russia in E. Europe over the missile shield (can't say I disagreed with Bolton on those points) but he was broadly off the mark on the Mideast Peace Process.
Here he claimed that Obama accepted the European viewpoint that Al Qaeda and other Islamist radicals would go away if we simply abandoned Israel. While this may be the view of some foreign policy scholars it is a view President Obama has never expressed. I was tempted to ironically yell 'you lie!' at that point in the speech but my sense of civility stayed me. He went on to argue that the disappearance of Israel would only embolden Islamic radicals and would not make America safer. He made this point in spite of the broad lack of evidence that President Obama has ever considered this an option or that anyone in mainstream American politics has ever said anything other than a consistent pro-Israel line of reasoning. That President Obama asked the Israeli's to stop West Bank settlements without really asking concessions on the part of the Palestinians was a valid point of criticism that Bolton advanced, but in no way does this prove the administration by supporting the two state solution has anything but the long-term security of Israel in mind when most long term thinkers, including most within Israel, think that a just settlement for the Palestinian people is in fact within Israel's long term security interests.
My second major reservation is this idea of 'post-Americanism', if anything President Obama is continuing the exceptionalism begun under his predecessor in far too many areas from continuing the practice of torture under rendition, moving prisoners overseas to be tortured, holding detainees illegally, approving unilateral military actions to stop terrorists, maintaining the Bush doctrine of preventative strikes in the face of terrorists threats, etc. Also 'post-Americanism' as Bolton defines it seems to be favoring collective security, working with allies, and forming a global consensus before undertaking US geopolitical action. This seems to be the strategy that FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and to a lesser extent even Reagan followed when fighting the Cold War. NATO seems to be according to Bolton's logic, a 'post-American' institution since it too is not under the jurisdiction of our constitution and is an institution we surrender sovereignty too. The UN is another such institution. Bolton contradicted himself when citing Iran's persistent violation of UN resolutions as a reason to support US/Israeli action against that nation while also mocking President Obama for trying to achieve peace through 'an ineffective security council that gives veto power to America's foes'. So what is it Bolton is the US an exceptional power that should act unilaterally and that never surrenders its sovereignty to alliances and collective security organizations or are we a leader that relies on those organizations? Are they relevant or irrelevant?
Sadly those questions were never asked since Sparticists and far out leftists asked incredibly stupid questions that gave Bolton reasonable cause to shut them down from his pulpit. Questions like 'the US has abused its exceptionalism by bombing Japan' gave Bolton the fodder he needed to paint his opponents as naive at best or anti-American at worst. A few thoughtful comments came from a Palestinian student who was nearly rudely shouted down by some woman in the audience but asked a reasonable question contradicting Bolton's assertion that Palestine has never existed ("it did in 1948 when my father lived there"-oh snap!) and his idiotic 'three state solution' whereby Jordan and Egypt absorb the Palestinians. This solution was probably the most bizarre portion of the speech generating the most critical questions. If the two state solution is infeasible and unjust how is this one any better? He basically conceded that its not any more feasible but is the better of the two fantasy scenarios for reasons he asserted but never explained. Also history seems to demonstrate that Jordon which fought a devastating civil war with the Palestinians when it occupied the West Bank and Egypt which has internal issues with the Muslim Brotherhood and would not want to take Hamas controlled Gaza in on top of that, have zero incentive to do this, thus rendering Bolton's 'bold' solution rather suspect.
Lastly the most disappointing part of the evening was that Bolton never addressed his actually interesting and innovative ideas about UN reform, never discussed his time there, the polarization of Senate confirmations, issues about his legal opinions regarding the advise and consent clause, the unitary executive, and torture. He did not address gays in the military (a question I would have asked him) or non military solutions to the Iranian crisis. Moreover the crowd was full of non-University Republicans that were quite rowdy and rude shouting down questioners they disagreed with, preventing dissenting views from being heard, and really engaging in a discussion that was partisan and skewed and not worthy of the intellectual tradition of the University. The night was certainly interesting but I was hoping for a much more engaging talk instead of an hour of right wing talking points followed by reasonable questioners being heckled into submission either by the speakers or his cronies in the audience. The moderator was hardly that but rather a right wing cheerleader that did little to keep his peers civil and in fact engaged in shouting some questioners down. This could have been a much better event and I wish Bolton had discussed those other ideas which would have made for a more interesting debate and back and forth. It was an event that I would argue changed view minds and only retrenched people in the camps they came in with. This is ironic since Tex and other College Republicans charged James Carville's appearance freshmen year with the same (equally valid) points that it was not in the spirit of the University but rather a partisan event. This too was a partisan event, not a dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
