It seems that major political campaigns, of late, we don't get a real good sense of the candidate's foreign policy views. Sen. Obama's recent, highly publicized, speech in Germany shed some light on his views--though it probably raises more questions than answers. As he flies the thousands of miles back home, he will probably leave most of the detailed foreign policy issues behind, and return to encourage "change" or "hope" or "apple pie." In essence, give the Europeans the substance--mixed with a healthy dose of 'we Americans certainly haven't done it right'--and bring the sound bites home.
The speech was reviewed by former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, who I got to talk to just before it was published. We discussed the stark foreign policy differences between the two candidates, particularly with respect to the Middle East and China. His comments to me were sobering. I hope Americans do the hard work--the press team's certainly won't make it easy on voters to find out on their own--of discovering what Sen. Obama's--or for that matter McCain's--world view is.
In short, I would say that you can say the problem with the world is that there are too many walls separating good people. Or you can say there are some bad people out there, thus good people build walls to protect themselves. I think Sen. Obama's speech points to the notion that we (Americans in particular) have been wall builders, and now need to 'tear down these walls' and realize the whole world (you know, us 'global citizens') are all on the same team.
You can read all of Amb. Bolton's article here, but I wanted to note a few highlights for you.
Bolton's summary:
Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.
On the razing of the Berlin wall being caused by a world united, or a two enemies locked in an ideological life-or-death struggle:
Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.
On the differences (and the existence, in my opinion, of good and evil) that exist in the world:
[Obama said:} "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.
On why the speech was given in Europe--and whether Europe really wants a weakened America:
That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.
As we hit the final 100 days of this campaign, I hope 'undecideds' think long and hard about the serious issues of foreign policy. It is one thing to say Pres. Bush screwed up our prestige in the world, shouldn't have invaded Iraq, should have had a better exit policy, etc. But it is another thing to therefore vote for someone as woefully naive--or possibly worse, someone who deliberately hides a 'weak America' foreign policy belief--as Sen. Obama at a time when foreign policy is critically important.
Wishing away our enemies, pandering to tyrants, and offering American mea culpas will not keep us safe, and without a safe America, the entire world is less safe.
Thomas More
Comments