25 July 2008
Cultural imperialism
Funny how the people who object to American sports such as NBA or NFL games being held in Europe do not object when an instalment of the American presidential election campaign comes to town. Democrat candidate Barack Obama was greeted by an adoring crowd in the Tiergarten in central Berlin. But what kind of a president will he be?
Read his speech and it is not clear. Fine-sounding words, but do they really mean as much as those Berliners seem to hope?
Attention has been paid to statements such as “No nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone.” as though they were novel or revolutionary. Other than for the most neo- of the neo-cons, this is surely a statement of the obvious, particularly by an American politician in a foreign country. As to how nations should work together to defeat such challenges, Obama does not tell us, except “through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress”. The strong institutions might be interesting, but the rest is padding.
A lot of comparisons have been drawn between Barack Obama and John F Kennedy, not least implicitly by Obama himself seeking to deliver a speech in Berlin. But JFK became president at a time when the US was the undisputed leader of the free world and its allies desperately wanted it to succeed. The world is different now, and America’s place in the democratic world’s affections has to be earned and not assumed. That will mean policies and not just speeches, and policies may turn out to be rather harder.
After all, George W Bush did not strike out in a completely new direction as American president but actually continued many of the foreign policies of his predecessor Bill Clinton. The Clinton administration launched bombing raids on Iraq, fired cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and effected regime change in countries such as Haiti.
To change American policies to ones that appeal to the rest of the democratic world will mean more than simply undoing the mistakes of the Bush presidency but will require a more far-reaching reassessment of America’s role in the world. Obama has offered fine words of leadership, and his views on nuclear deterrence and climate change are surely welcome around the world, but there is more yet to come before we can be sure.
Read his speech and it is not clear. Fine-sounding words, but do they really mean as much as those Berliners seem to hope?
Attention has been paid to statements such as “No nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone.” as though they were novel or revolutionary. Other than for the most neo- of the neo-cons, this is surely a statement of the obvious, particularly by an American politician in a foreign country. As to how nations should work together to defeat such challenges, Obama does not tell us, except “through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress”. The strong institutions might be interesting, but the rest is padding.
A lot of comparisons have been drawn between Barack Obama and John F Kennedy, not least implicitly by Obama himself seeking to deliver a speech in Berlin. But JFK became president at a time when the US was the undisputed leader of the free world and its allies desperately wanted it to succeed. The world is different now, and America’s place in the democratic world’s affections has to be earned and not assumed. That will mean policies and not just speeches, and policies may turn out to be rather harder.
After all, George W Bush did not strike out in a completely new direction as American president but actually continued many of the foreign policies of his predecessor Bill Clinton. The Clinton administration launched bombing raids on Iraq, fired cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and effected regime change in countries such as Haiti.
To change American policies to ones that appeal to the rest of the democratic world will mean more than simply undoing the mistakes of the Bush presidency but will require a more far-reaching reassessment of America’s role in the world. Obama has offered fine words of leadership, and his views on nuclear deterrence and climate change are surely welcome around the world, but there is more yet to come before we can be sure.
Posted by Richard Laming at 16:15
First, I'm glad you brought this up, although I disagree some what...
The American conservatives like to banter about the "Islamaficication of Europe," meaning the "invasion of Middle East culture" in the form of mosques going up in parts of Europe and especially in Britain. Why is there neven any concern for the invasion of American culture?
Second, there is conciderable American conserative activism going on in Europe, espically in relation to the Irish "no" vote. America, the Lisbon Treaty and Europe's place in the world...
The election of Sarkozy the harsh and punitive "Return" Directive and the growing number of harsh immigration policies in Europe, market liberalization, invasions of data privacy and the "war on terror," and especially the increase of nationalism, most noteworthy in Britain -could have been inspired by American conservatives.
Also what should be noted is the continued demands that European security and defense identity be chained to NATO and the US. The first demand with a President Obama should be to "allow" Europeans their own security and defense identity that is totally separate from NATO.
What I saw in Obama's speech was a rebuke of the harsh immigration policies, as well as a call to a partnership with Europe that is more a partnership - and not a dictatorship where America demands and Europe obeys.
Post a Comment
Back to the top