..
I love Noam Chomsky’s
robust and honest take on American excesses. His visceral intellection and
articulation of the issues broods no talking points’ challenges. You either
understand your history and policy very well to stand toe to toe with him or
just go sulk in a corner if you don’t like what he’s saying. But sometimes, his
cynicism, a function of his intellectual arrogance, takes the better of him and
the result is usually a blind-alley argument as substitute for policy. We live
in a real world that decisions need not be tailored exactly to meet our idealism
and where they don’t, we don’t have to demonise them.
Recently, I wrote on President
Barack Obama and his handling of Syria in the light of what some saw as Vladimir
Putin’s better approach or whatever they thought it was. This was what I said
about what I consider to be the emerging Obama Doctrine:
“Right now, if there is anything that qualifies
as the Obama Doctrine in the foreign policy of the United States, we are seeing
it clearer with this Syrian crisis. That policy is simply this: Whenever an act
of genocide or any instance of crimes against humanity is established to have
been committed by a state or any agent of state anywhere, the United States
will, along with its allies and other interested members of the international
community, mobilize all diplomatic and where necessary military resources to
confront and eliminate that threat with or without recourse to the United
Nations Security Council, pursuant to its obligations to humanity and in
defence of customary international law”.
Of course, there’s
enough evidence since 1945 to indicate that those who have been running the
political affairs of the United States have not always fought a just war, but
one great thing about America is that no matter the burdens imposed by succession,
every presidency has in the course of its subsistence carved its own way in
international relations. When Chomsky talks about the debate about isolationism
and exceptionalism being “narrower than it may seem” or there being a “considerable
common ground between the two positions”, a lot of that has to do with how the
presidents confront the historical reality before them. Franklin Roosevelt was
an instinctive isolationist who in speeches after speeches and in actions after
actions made isolationism into a political virtue firmly supported by public
opinion while Adolf Hitler ran amok in Europe. After the American experience of
World War I, he campaigned to “shun
political commitments which might entangle us in foreign wars” and was committed
to “isolate ourselves completely from war.” Roosevelt was not averse to
sending aid to Britain, but no boots on the ground was the rule.
Yet, popular opinion credit two factors with changing the
mind of Isolationist America, one of which was Roosevelt’s leadership while the
other is the attack on Pearl Harbour. But is this true? Roosevelt was still
very much an isolationist the day before Pearl Harbour; but before then, American
public opinion had begun to shift. It was one thing to see Hitler invading some
Sudetenland, but by May 1940 when German tanks were seen rolling over Belgium, the
Netherland and into Paris, it was clear to Americans what they were up against.
If they needed any further proof that the Germans were only interested in world
domination, Hitler’s mobilization of the largest invasion force against the
Soviet Union in June 1941 sealed it. So, Pearl Harbour just more or less
confirmed that America was going to join the war.
The difference between then and now is that Obama, unlike
Roosevelt is instinctively not an isolationist. Isolationism was actually forced
on America by the George W Bush misadventure in Iraq. Obama campaigned with the
objective of reintroducing American leadership to a suspicious world, but this
time without the gung-ho attitude of George W Bush and the neocons. The world
was tired of American intervention, Americans were tired of their government’s
intervention abroad and it was left for Obama to raise the morale of the world
and Americans and to keep their eyes on the ball. He struck the appropriate
balance between isolationism and exceptionalism and barely a year into his
presidency he won the Nobel Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
But Obama’s Nobel
Speech clearly gave an indication of what his Doctrine is. This was how I
described it in the article above under the section titled “Noble Warrior”:
…………………..
On December 10, 2009, the first thing
Obama said in his Nobel speech after the greetings was “…for all the cruelty
and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions
matter and can bend history in the direction of justice”. He declared: “I do
not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do
know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work,
and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it
will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives
of a just peace”.
Now, this notion of a just war is
crucial, because the intellectual opposition to Obama’s threat to use military
strike against Syria has coalesced around the argument that a war against Syria
would not be a just war. In that speech, Obama defined a just war thus (with a
general historical background):
“War, in one form or another,
appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not
questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which
tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences. Over
time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did
philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of
war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is
justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last
resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever
possible, civilians are spared from violence”.
Obama acknowledged that for most of
history, “this concept of just war was rarely observed”, but he went on to
defend the historical basis for the founding of the United Nations after World
War II which established “mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to
protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous
weapons”. He said in many ways, these efforts succeeded, because even though
terrible wars have been fought and atrocities committed, we have not had a
Third World War. “The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall.
Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted
from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule
of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight
of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully
proud”.
He then posited the problem of the
present: “A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under
the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of
war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of
catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a
few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale”.
Further, “wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within
nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of
secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states – all these have increasingly
trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are
killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are
wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred”.
Obama then gave an idea how he’d deal
with this type of problem. “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth
that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be
times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of
force not only necessary but morally justified”. Obama said he was mindful of
the Martin Luther King and Gandhi’s notion of non-violence and that even though
he appreciated the active moral force and wisdom behind the creed, his position
calls for something more, because “as a head of state sworn to protect and
defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world
as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.
For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could
not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's
leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not
a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man
and the limits of reason”.
Obama stated that he was raising the
above point “because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about
military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a
reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower”. But he
was also quick to point out that “it was not simply international institutions
- not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World
War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the
United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than
six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The
service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and
prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places
like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our
will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a
better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their
lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in
freedom and prosperity”.
This is Obama’s whole worldview as an
American. It isn’t one based on gung-ho militarism, but one fashioned by
national pride in the role that his nation has played in establishing the
post-WWII world order. So, contrary to the claims being made by Putin impliedly
about Obama’s Syrian policy likely to lead to the death of the United Nations,
just like the League of Nations, Obama is actually more invested in protecting
the institution, because of the sacrifices American citizens have made in
championing its establishment and sustenance. True, at times its bureaucracy
and veto system have constrained America’s foreign policy, but Obama knows it
is necessary to work within it as much as possible without compromising its
credibility. True democratic governments have much more reason to protect the
United Nations (even as they know it’s long overdue for reform) than glorified
dictatorships like Russia’s.
Poignantly quoting from President
John F Kennedy’s June 10, 1963 speech at the American University where he was
talking about his vision and strategy for world peace, Obama said: “Let us
focus on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden
revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human
institutions." To Obama, the evolution and the practical steps coalesce in
internationally acceptable standards to be adhered to by all states, strong and
weak. While such standards must not stop states from acting unilaterally in
self-defence, he is convinced that “adhering to standards strengthens those who
do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't”.
Obama at the time foresaw a situation
like Syria and said the following: “Furthermore, America cannot insist that
others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For
when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of
future intervention - no matter how justified. This becomes particularly
important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defence or
the defence of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront
difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their
own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf
an entire region.
“I believe that force can be
justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places
that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to
more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must
embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the
peace.
“I understand why war is not
popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely
enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.
“Let me also say this: the promotion
of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled
with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes
lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions
without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a
crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it
has the choice of an open door”.
These are the principles that have
governed everything Obama has done in relation to the Syrian crisis. He has
showed reluctance to intervene when it was just a civil war, because of the
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another state. But as
the war goes on, he has watched with horror as the Syrian government resorts to
tactics that are clearly in breach of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1992
Chemical Weapons Convention. Bashar al-Assad has no scruples committing acts of
genocide against the Syrian people by consistently shelling and killing of
non-combatant civilian population.
As the death tolls increased and the
world continued to be assaulted by the brutal images of the conflict every day,
he tried to work with others at the United Nations to get the world to stop the
carnage. But obviously the commercial and strategic interests of Russia and
China and their friendship with the Bashar al-Assad regime meant they always
were vetoing every action put forward by the international community. While
Obama refuses to arm the Free Syrian Army and the moderate Syrian rebels, the
Russians, Chinese and Iranian are steadily arming al-Assad, giving him a huge
advantage in the war. During his re-election campaign, Obama received a
roasting from the right for not doing anything about Syria while he was
campaigning on the promise of bringing home American troops from Iraq and
Afghanistan.
But, Obama’s strategy before now was
based on the model built on the back of the Arab Spring. There has to be a
credible opposition that would boldly confront the dictatorship with a
democratic agenda and attempt to force it to the table to negotiate a
democratic change. He would back this, because that would be in line with the
principle of supporting democracy and self-determination worldwide.
Right now, if there is anything that
qualifies as the Obama Doctrine in the foreign policy of the United States, we
are seeing it clearer with this Syrian crisis. That policy is simply this:
Whenever an act of genocide or any instance of crimes against humanity is
established to have been committed by a state or any agent of state anywhere,
the United States will, along with its allies and other interested members of
the international community, mobilize all diplomatic and where necessary
military resources to confront and eliminate that threat with or without
recourse to the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to its obligations to
humanity and in defence of customary international law.
………………………………..
So, Obama himself
narrowed that debate with his handling of foreign policy and national security
issues. He has intensified drone efforts in spite of criticisms from all sides and
aggressively pursues terrorist enemies of the United States, picking them up or
killing them in other sovereign territories without apology to anyone. He sat and supervised the killing of Osama Bin
Laden and has just reminded everyone that his aggressive instincts against
these terrorists are still alert with the latest Libyan and Somali raids by US
Navy Seals. He knew Americans were still war-weary when he ordered Operation
Odyssey Dawn that saw the end of Gaddafi. He knows Syria is more complex and
needs a multilateral diplomatic intervention, especially after the use of chemical
weapons on August 21. With American and generally world opinion still being
anti-war, he knew there was no other option; but he was able to manoeuvre the
stonewalling Putin into jumping at a diplomatic initiative that would see the
destruction of the entire arsenal of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile with
the threat of military strike against Syria.
Under Obama, despite
Putin kicking up a stink, American exceptionalism is alive and well and
evidenced in actions the US has led or undertaken. The US did not instigate the
Arab Spring, but every protest in the Arab World was not looking to the Soviet
Union or to Al Qaeda, but to the United States for inspiration. Of course, it
will take time in those places and they will have to find their own democratic
path and continue to hone their voices of freedom through thick and thin, but
they are on their way and the vision in their head is the United States. This is
no imposition or imperialism; this is a people’s dream based on the American
example, warts and all.
Even those who oppose
military strike against Assad aren’t looking at Obama the same way they looked
at George Bush. They are witnessing the massacres of the Syrian regime, its use
of chemical weapons and the commercial interest of Russia and China who support
Assad. Just like the Americans of 1941, their minds could be changed depending
on how this chemical weapons destruction plan goes. We can be sure that if
Assad falters or tries to play dirty tricks, not many would rail against Obama
applying military force. He doesn’t need a Pearl Harbour. It’s set already and
it depends on the Syrians and Russians not to make the US pull the trigger.
Of course, Obama
knows the burden of US history of intervention - what Chomsky described as “the
fact that "for nearly seven
decades" the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion
- overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting
horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of
blood, destruction and misery”. But international relations is sometimes not a
morality game. The reality of the Cold War was brutal and the United States
must bear the responsibility for some of its atrocious actions in history. But
if you compare the US with other imperial powers in history, it’s ‘brutality’
is tame. Her consistent attempt to sell the values of freedom and democracy is unparalleled
in history. Or would any of us have preferred that the Soviet Union won the
Cold War? Not even Noam Chomsky would have liked that. It is only a country
like the United States (despite its own internal history of racial brutality)
that can produce a man like Barack Obama as President and leave him with the
power to define his own legacy. He’s doing that right now.
History will record his time as a new beginning for
America, not only in terms of race relations, but in terms of its relationship
with the rest of the world. Putin may kick and scream about the dangers of
American exceptionalism while he bullies Ukraine and Moldova to join his
Eurasia Customs Union, but no one is in doubt about America’s leadership in the
international community. The way Obama has handled every foreign crisis with a
mix of American exceptionalism and respectful isolationism while respecting the
anti-war mood of today is in the main admirable. Obama knows that with the rise
of China, India, Brazil, Japan, Korea and so on, it must continue to seek to engage
in every geopolitical region of the world, because the world looks up to it to
protect the values that have been sowed since the formation of the UN in 1945.
No one expects China or Russia to be that keen, because we know their history.
Obama is steering the United States towards being a
more responsible superpower that can be trusted by the weak and powerless
everywhere. It may not be able to intervene everywhere or satisfy the yearnings
of everybody, but under Obama’s leadership what we have seen is not the overt
use of force to pursue the interest of sections of the American industrial-military
establishment in the guise of protecting American interest, but a more
intelligent and humane use of force to stop and prevent atrocities as we saw in
Libya and Mali and as he threatened to do in Syria. This is not isolationism.
It’s American exceptionalism with the willing support of others who share her
values of freedom and democracy. Obama is not imposing these, but ensuring that
those who believe in them are not left to the jackboots of killers of dreams
wherever America can help it.
…..
President
Barack Obama speaks at Prince George's Community College in Kettering, Md., Sept. 26, 2013. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)
