Author: Carsten Agger Published: October 27th, 2011
USAs præsident Barack Obama:
Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. (…)The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly…
Nåh nej, det var noget helt andet, han talte om. Eller var det?
Herunder ser vi Oaklands heroiske politi, der forsvarer Mubaraks dikatur det amerikanske demokrati mod demonstranter, der forsøger at komme en såret kammerat til undsætning:
Beklager den voldsomme titel, men lejligheden kræver det.
Mark LeVine, professor i historie ved University of California og Reza Aslan, som bl.a. er forfatter af bogen “Kun en Gud”, rammer hovedet gentagne gange på sømmet i et fælles indlæg på Al Jazeera English:
However noble and justified the United States’ intentions may be in launching an attack on a dictator who has murdered his own people and supported international acts of terrorism, the hypocrisy and inconsistently with which the Obama administration has dealt with the so-called “Arab Awakening” risks generating as much ire in the region as did the invasion of Iraq, especially among the young people who have led the pro-democracy revolutions that have inspired the world.
If there is one thing that the Arab world’s “Facebook Generation” does not suffer, it is hypocrisy, either by its own governments or by its foreign allies and patrons.
Yet it is impossible not to recognise the rank hypocrisy in supporting the rights of anti-government protesters in Libya, while turning a blind eye to the same in Bahrain, where government troops have massacred dozens of unarmed civilians; in Yemen, where the regime of president Ali Abdullah Saleh has been firing live ammunition into peaceful crowds; in Saudi Arabia, whose military has been sent into neighbouring countries to brutally suppress people’s demand for the most basic rights and freedoms; in the Palestinian territories, where non-violent demonstrations for an end to Israeli settlements have been completely ignored by an American administration who, until recently, vowed that a settlement freeze would form the basis of its Middle East policy.
In announcing the military strikes against Colonel Gaddafi, Obama declared that the United States “cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up its assault on innocent men and women [who] face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.”
He reiterated this theme in his latest speech.
Does the president not recognise the irony of those words, which could be applied to any one of America’s dictatorial allies in the Middle East?
Problemet er, at Obama-regeringens troværdighed som forkæmpere for eller blot støtter af demokrati efterhånden lander på et stort, rundt og hårdt tilkæmpet nul. Hvordan kan man sige, at man ikke vil acceptere, at en diktator myrder sit folk – for blot at bede “begge sider” vise tilbageholdenhed, når regeringen med saudisk hjælp myrder folk på gaden i Bahrain? Hvordan kan man komme ud med en helhjertet støtte til den problematiske “grønne bevægelse” i Iran – blot for at sige, at “Yemens stabilitet er vigtig”, når snesevis af demonstranter bliver dræbt på gaden dér, som det faktisk skete forleden?
Men, læs ikke kun det, jeg citerer herover, læs hele Levines og Aslans indlæg. Der er mere – der er f.eks. det her:
Mr. Obama’s speech did nothing to address the inconsistencies in America’s response to the so-called “Arab Spring”.
And at the meeting of “allies” behind the no-fly zone in London, secretary of state Clinton’s declaration that, “it is obvious to everyone that Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead” betrayed irony and hypocrisy in equal measure, since by any reasonable definition of “legitimate” few if any leaders in the Arab world have “legitimacy to lead”.
At the same time, by refusing to become a party to the International Criminal Court, the United States undermines the legitimacy of the ICC as a venue for trying Gaddafi for crimes against his people, as allies like Britain have suggested.
The charade of overthrowing regimes and invading countries in the name of democracy was a bloody farce in the case of Bush era. They now don’t need to do that. They can just jump on the case where they see a potential for a real democratic change and then guarantee the installation of a puppet regime without having “boots on the ground”, as Obama kept warning in White House meetings. They bomb and kill and manage to maintain a high tone of moral uprightness while the puppet Arab League puts its ugly stamp to make it look like an Arab affair.
A useful idiot is needed, of course, and Mustafa `Abdul-Al-Jalil is perfect for the role and he has been so chummy with Saudi propaganda as of late. Obama has modified Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: not only maintaining the occupations but guaranteeing long-term presence in both countries. He has also started a war in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where the US is a major force in the war there.
Western enthusiasm for intervention in Libya has never even been explained: why the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia did not warrant any condemnation (the State Department did manage to condemn the protesters in Egypt, lest we forget too soon)? Israel manages to kill far more than Qadhdhafi and in shorter periods of time, and we never encounter the “humanitarian” impulse of Western governments there.
I hope there are enough drug testing facilities to accommodate Talking Points Memo reporters, Charlie Savage, the lawyers from EFF, Bob Herbert, Anthony Romero, Russ Feingold, and The New York Times Editorial Board. I don’t know anyone who asserts that Obama is the same as Bush – I don’t believe that and never asserted that — but if anyone needs to be “drug tested,” it would be those denying that many of Bush’s most controversial policies and actions have been embraced in full by Barack Obama.
Som Cory Doctorow observerer: I didn’t expect the guy to walk on water, but I’d love it if he wouldn’t wallow in shit.
When ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero last week addressed the progressive conference America’s Future Now, he began by saying: ”I’m going to start provocatively . . . I’m disgusted with this president.” Last night, after Obama’s Oval Office speech, Jon Stewart began his show with an 8-minute monologue on Obama’s executive power and civil liberties record which, in essence, provided just some of the reasons why Romero’s strong condemnation is so justified. None of this will be remotely new to any readers here, but it’s still nice to see its being distilled so clearly by a voice which even the most hardened Obama loyalists have decided is a credible and trustworthy one.
I hvert fald ifølge den amerikanske journalist Les Payne:
It is impossible to imagine another U.S. President, not even “Honest Abe Lincoln,” inviting the cop to the White House who’d humiliated “a friend” by arresting him at home on a charge so freakish that the DA tossed it as an
Yet, here was Sgt James Crowley knocking back Blue Moons Thursday as a white folk hero on the Rose Garden patio. The professor cuffed under false pretenses sat under the same magnolia tree across from the leader of the world’s lone superpower.
Did President Obama teach his point?
The White House photo op was aimed, of course, at that majority white audience siding with Sgt Crowley. Poll numbers had dipped against the president’s statement that in arresting his friend at his home, the Cambridge cop had “acted stupidly.”
The beer blast didn’t change Gates’ sense of being wronged racially, or Crowley’s flat-footed denial. This unsettled charge has to be bounced to a higher court.
Supporters tend to break down along racial lines that in miniature reflect the cleft stick of race relations in America, especially as it applies to the criminal justice system.
African-Americans resent the White House showcasing of this local, “rogue cop” as a participant in a constructive dialogue on race. They tempered their critique, however, with respect for Obama as a brilliant, political tactician, with skills that—unlike, say, complaining black leaders—have earned him the presidency of the United States.
Even among defenders, the mere sight of the tight-faced, Irish cop at the Rose Garden round-table raised second thoughts. To give Sgt Crowley the benefit of the doubt under the circumstances of the Gates’ arrest is a scary thought indeed.
Er det virkelig den samme avis, der i 2003 stillede sig bag den “unødvendige og dårligt forberedte” krig mod Irak? I dagens leder læser vi i hvert fald:
[Obama] har ikke den blåøjede tro på, at demokrati med et slag kan ændre verden, som efter Østblokkens sammenbrud prægede de neokonservatives verdenssyn, og som forførte dem til troen på, at forebyggende krige og aggressivt demokrati kunne løse problemerne. USA skal være en rollemodel, og det skal ikke påtvinge andre nationer sine værdier.
Med det udgangspunkt ventes hans tale i Egypten med spænding, for hvem er det, han vil tale til? Den muslimske verden er ikke et entydigt begreb. Den er et puslespil af forskellige værdier – aggressive og fredelige holdninger, tyrannier, undertrykkelse og tolerance. Den er et broget kalejdoskop af religion og politik, og den er hjemsted for fanatikere, som kynisk dræber ytringsfrihed og demokrati. Men først og fremmest er den muslimske verden et massivt flertal af fredelige mennesker, som forkaster ekstremisterne, og som søger respekt. Den er også en verden, der har mange reformvenlige ledere, som ønsker den dialog mellem den muslimske og den vestlige verden, som Obama har stillet dem i udsigt.
Der er ingen hurtig genvej i Mellemøsten.
Fornuftig tale og skarp, moderat analyse – i Jyllands-Posten? Det er sandelig nye tider.
Lad os endelig hindre sandheden om den amerikanske hærs tortur af sine fanger i at komme frem. Med Glenn Greenwalds ord:
The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman — called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 — that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.” As long as the Defense Secretary certifies — with no review possible — that disclosure would “endanger” American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.
Just imagine if any other country did this. Imagine if a foreign government were accused of systematically torturing and otherwise brutally abusing detainees in its custody for years, and there was ample photographic evidence proving the extent and brutality of the abuse. Further imagine that the country’s judiciary — applying decades-old transparency laws — ruled that the government was legally required to make that evidence public. But in response, that country’s President demanded that those transparency laws be retroactively changed for no reason other than to explicitly empower him to keep the photographic evidence suppressed, and a compliant Congress then immediately passed a new law empowering the President to suppress that evidence. What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn’t even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.