 |
Obama's Brandenburg Should Be In Pakistan |
|
 by Ali Eteraz, July 22, 2008 |
||
TAGS:
JFK Went to Germany: obama should go to pakistanOne of the most interesting things about the Obama-McCain showdown is that for the most part, most of the world, including the Americans, have already begun treating Obama as President. The sort of coverage he gets, and more importantly, the kind of international reverberation and impact his actions create, are Presidential in every way. One need only follow the way that Obama was received in Kuwait or the kind of noise his appearance in Germany has been creating.
Obama's plan in Germany, to hold a JFK-style rally in front of the historic Brandenburg Gate has come under attack from Germany's leader, Angela Merkel, as well as a host of critics who suggest that perhaps the Senator should wait before he's elected to make such a bold statement.
Yet, the interesting question to me is whether holding such a rally is anything but a great PR move. It certainly doesn't evoke any substantive benefit, to the world, or to America.
Tony Campbell at the excellent The Moderate Voice blog makes this point rather clearly when he suggests that rather than Berlin, Obama should go to Mecca.
"My suggestion to Obama: forget Berlin, go to Mecca. If you really want to be seen in a Kennedy / Reagan light in the diplomatic arena, you should use your popularity and your unique heritage to address the Christian and Muslim worlds. A thoughtful speech that focuses on our similarities, rather than our differences, is clearly needed between both communities of faith. Kennedy and Reagan in their speeches addressed the major foreign policy concerns of our country. Obama has the opportunity to do something similar if he takes up this challenge. However, the issue is much trickier and more dangerous than either Kennedy or Reagan had to face. Instead of disarming conventional and nuclear weapons, Obama has to disarm fear and prejudice on both sides, Christian and Muslim."
Putting aside the various security and bigotry related reasons (Saudis don't allow non-Muslims in Mecca) that this can't happen, Campbell is, on the whole, right. When JFK went to Germany, it was the country at the heart of the conflict between Communism and the West. Today, Germany plays no role in the greater conflict enveloping the world -- that of West versus Islam. In other words, if Obama wants to make something as historic as JFK's speech, he needs to tackle the perception that there is a war between Islam and Christendom, and he needs to make such a speech in a Muslim country.
Where I disagree with Campbell is that Obama needs to go to Mecca (or to Tehran). JFK didn't go to Moscow or Beijing. Obama needs to find a place near to Mecca, with a sufficiently Islamic flavor, where the principles he wants to espouse -- those of open government and freedom of conscience and trust-building -- are present in sufficient qualities among the people. The recent (secular) democratic mini-revolution in Pakistan suggests that it is one such place. Pakistan has the benefit, unlike Egypt and Jordan and other Muslim countries where the democratic spirit is also high, of actually having a democratic government by virtue of having removed their tyrant. Security would be the only issue but there is no reason that it can't be surmounted. I also recommend Pakistan because Obama went there in college, has friends from Pakistan and his mother worked for Pakistani development in the World Bank, so that he has serious connections to the country. He can say that he witnessed Pakistan under Islamist Tyranny under General Zia ul Haq, and begin from there.
Pakistan, incidentally, also happens to be the place where the so-called confrontation between Mecca and Washington is the most blatant.
Obama should consider it. But wait till he's elected.
Graffiti writer Claw Money is a fashion savant—just ask her ...
A look at Israeli gay pride through the years- Our secular guinea pig tries two ritual baths -- one Orthodox,...
In this week's Big Question, Steven I. Weiss of the Canonist and...
From Paper Dolls to Coffee Beans to Sneakers, We Have All Your...
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
John Maszka
Senator Obama is a dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
The rest of this comment truncated per Jewcy's comments policy. Please just link to your website next time.
Shootingsparks
"It certainly doesn't evoke any substantive benefit, to the world, or to America."
You mean Israel right?? As an American i found it heartening to see a throng of over 200k German people actually glad to see an American politician. After years of wars for Israeoil George Bush effectively trashed my country. To see smiling people in other countries waving the American flag rather than burning it was rather heartening. Yea yea, not going to convince any Zionists....too damn bad, it's not all about YOU....
We can deal with Al CIAda from here....
Zeeev
'You mean Israel right?? As an American i found it heartening to see a
throng of over 200k German people actually glad to see an American
politician. After years of wars for Israeoil George Bush effectively
trashed my country. To see smiling people in other countries waving the
American flag rather than burning it was rather heartening. Yea yea,
not going to convince any Zionists....too damn bad, it's not all about
YOU...'
'Zionists' are among Obama's supporters and likely many of them support what he does, when he does it.This has nothing to do with Zionism and much more to do with the Republican-Democrat divide (excuse me if I shock you: they're both ardently pro-Zionist parties! Obama is an admitted Zionist! Aaaaaaaaagh!). I think your statement is quite reflects your own views, in fact--that everything is about Zionism and that people oppose Obama speaking at the Kennedy Plaza (or indeed Obama being elected) because they are Zionists. This is nonsense. As your statement demonstrates, Zionism, to you, has no real definition, bar being a hate-filled slur that you throw at those who disagree with you. Most likely you deem 'Zionists' to be your 'enemies', in some tribalistic fashion: Me Og, you not Og--so you bad and you enemy (and as a corollary, Me great and Me know everything).
You or anyone else 'feeling good' about your country because a bunch of American flags are being waved is hardly a substantive benefit to America or the world. It would -reflect-, rather than improve, Obama's popularity. If Obama were to be elected and speak at the Plaza, then it may well reflect the popularity of his Administration in Germany (where it counts most).
Obama may well be a popular candidate overseas and that may be a (rather insubstantial) reason to elect him, but that has nothing to do with whether he should or should not speak at the Kennedy Plaza. If McCain happened to be more popular than him, I would oppose his speaking there as well. The issue regards one particular campaign tactic--that is, holding a rally overseas in a place of immense symbolic significance. Nothing more than that.
Frankly, I could not care less whether he speaks there or not. I don't really think it will make a difference. The Republicans might have some sour grapes over the incident, but that's hardly likely to translate to a cooling of German-US ties if they ever come to power. Anyway, that's all I have to say.
Anonymous
what makes you think he is talking about Israel? As far as I know, Ali Eteraz isn't even Jewish, let alone, Israeli. Well then again maybe he is just a clever invention of the Zionist Lobby.
Riaz Haq
The aggressive Pakistan stance by Mr. Obama raises some big questions: Is he
going to end the war in Iraq and start a much bigger, far more
dangerous and longer lasting war in Pakistan? Does he know that
nuclear-armed Pakistan, a nation of 165 million people with about a
million-man military, will be a far bigger challenge than Afghanistan,
Iraq or Iran? Is he willing to radicalize moderate Muslims, destabilize
Pakistan, and unwittingly aid the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in their quest
to establish their extreme version of Islamic rule? Is Mr. Obama
prepared for this local war in FATA to become a regional or global war?
These questions are troubling many observers in the United States,
South Asia and the rest of the world. Please read my post Is Obama's Recipe for Afghanistan Credible?