Yes, but which side is the wrong side of history?
Over at the Huffington Post, they liked Obama’s speech at the UN:
“The peoples of the world want change,” Obama asserted. “They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.” He sought to harness that yearning for change in much the same way as he did in America during the 2008 election campaign. “The most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings,” he declared.
The president didn’t, however, just talk in abstract terms about the need for change. He also sketched out specific challenges, particularly when it came to the need to promote nuclear disarmament, to move forward on climate change policies; and to carve out a just, durable, peace in the Middle East, critiquing Israel publicly in a way U.S. presidents aren’t wont to often do. America would be doing Israel no favors, he averred, if it didn’t publicly declare that Israel had to respect the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.
After years in which America’s leadership viewed the U.N. as an afterthought, an annoying institution to which it reluctantly paid lip service, Obama’s administration has made it clear that it takes the forum seriously.
Then again, there’s this indictment of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, with some lighter moments thrown in for good measure:
the catalogue of Mr. Obama’s embarrassing moments on the world stage, a list which includes:
– giving England’s Queen Elizabeth II an iPod with his speeches on it;
– giving British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a collection of DVDs that were not formatted to the European standard (by contrast, Mr. Brown gave Mr. Obama an ornamental desk-pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet, among other historically significant gifts);
– calling “Austrian” a language;
– bowing to the Saudi king;
– releasing a photo of a conference call with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which the president was showing the soles of his shoes to the camera (an Arab insult);
– saying “let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s”;
– saying the United States was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”;
– suggesting Arabic translators be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan where Arabic is not a native language;
– sending a letter to French President Jacques Chirac when Nicolas Sarkozy was the president of France;
– holding a town-hall meeting in France and not calling on a single French citizen;
– and referring to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when he meant Cinco de Mayo.
– Also of note was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton giving Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a “reset” button with the Russian word for “overcharge.”
Gaffes aside, whether you think Obama’s foreign policy is good or bad depends upon which side of history you think is the right side. When both Vladimir Putin and Fidel Castro are praising Obama as “brave,” they certainly seem to have an idea about which side of history the American president is on.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
No big deal of course. The Prez is just channeling Sarah Palin…:)
Compare and contrast the media reaction if even just a subset of those gaffes had originated with her.
Oh well, it’s only just over 3 years left. Think of it as an unusually extended lame duck period.
I’d have understood if he’d said ‘Siete de Nueve’ though. It is difficult to get the image of Jeri Ryan in that catsuit out of one’s mind.:) I could extend the Star Trek/Borg meme I suppose, but the parallels to the Obama administration are entirely too obvious for a pastiche to be worth doing.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
from L.A. Times editorial:
Conservative critics of President Obama’s foreign policy initiatives are having a tough week. On Thursday, Obama achieved a signature victory when the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved his resolution aimed at halting nuclear proliferation. His warm reception by the General Assembly — some delegates were so awed by the American president that they couldn’t resist snapping pictures during his Wednesday speech — stood in sharp contrast to the welcome accorded George W. Bush, whose U.N. speeches were typically met with stony silence. Even the implacably hostile Russians suddenly seem amenable to U.S. desires.
Under Bush, eight years of unilateral actions, disrespect for international institutions, violations of international law and needless antagonism of countries such as Russia increased tension to nearly unbearable levels, served as a recruiting device for terrorists and produced gridlock at the U.N. that made addressing global problems all but impossible. It also strengthened hostile regimes in Iran, Sudan and Venezuela, among other countries, where leaders needed only to defy the United States to heighten their popularity. The result was a more dangerous world.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:39 am
How long before we hear “Peace in out time?” Arrogant and ignorant are a dangerous mix.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:39 am
[...] Yes, but which side is the wrong side of history? [...]