Skip to main content

SPEAKING in Ghana on Saturday, Barack Obama lectured Africans on local repression, corruption, brutality, good governance and accountability. The startling contrast to his June speech in Cairo was revealing.

Stroking Muslim and Arab nations has become the hallmark of the US President's foreign policy.

In Egypt, he chose not to utter the words terrorism or genocide. In Egypt, there was nothing "brutal" he could conjure up, no "corruption" and no "repression". In Ghana, with a 70 per cent Christian population, he mentioned "good governance" seven times and added direct calls to "make change from the bottom up". He praised "people taking control of their destiny" and pressed "young people" to "hold your leaders accountable".

He made no such calls for action by the people of Arab states, despite the fact not a single Arab country is free, according to the latest Freedom House global survey. Before the Muslim world Obama donned the role of apologist-in-chief. Over and over again his examples of shortfalls in the protection of rights and freedoms were American: the "prison at Guantanamo Bay", "rules on charitable giving (that) have made it harder for Muslims to fulfil their religious obligation", impediments to the choice of Muslim women to shroud their bodies.

Christian Africa was to be treated to no such self-flagellation. In a rare tongue-lashing for Africans from any US president, he chastised: "It's easy to point fingers and to pin the blame of these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict ... but the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy ... or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants ... tribalism and patronage and nepotism ... and ... corruption."

He might equally have said to the Arab and Muslim world: "It's easy to scapegoat Israel and blame your problems on the presence of Jews -- albeit on a fraction of 1 per cent of the territory inhabited by the Arab world -- but Israel is not responsible for poverty, illiteracy, torture, trafficking, slavery and oppression rampant across your countries." But he did not.

In Ghana he pointed to specific heroes who had exposed human rights abuse, singling out by name a courageous investigative reporter. In Egypt, though journalists and bloggers are routinely threatened, jailed and worse, no such brave soul came to mind.

In a Christian African nation he said: "If we are honest, for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes."

To the Arab and Muslim world he could have said: "Since the day of Israel's birth Arab and Muslim countries have made conflict with Israel a part of life, warring over land and manipulating whole communities into fighting in the name of Islam to render the area Judenrein."

Instead, he turned on the only democracy in the Middle East and said the presence of Jews on Arab-claimed territory -- settlements -- was an affront to be stopped. It didn't matter that agreements require ultimate ownership of this territory to be determined by negotiation or that apartheid Palestine is hardly a worthy pursuit.

From Ghana he chided Africans: "No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end."

For an Arab and Muslim audience he cooed: "America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened."

Ghanaians will likely turn the other cheek, secure enough to take it and even be grateful for the spotlight. But Obama's double standard is not a victimless crime. The disparity between the scolding he gave in Ghana and the love-in he held in Cairo illuminates an incoherent and dangerous agenda.

In his lofty but empty rhetoric in Ghana, Obama promised "we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst", pledged "a commitment ... to sanction and stop" warmongers and embraced the Zimbabwe non-governmental organisation that "braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person's vote is their sacred right".

These are devastating words for Iranians struggling valiantly to keep the hope of democracy alive but forced to bear witness to the contradiction. Betrayed, they have watched the Obama administration pledge to move forward on negotiations with illegally ensconced Iranian thugs, at the same time their victims are being rounded up, tortured and readied for show trials in advance of certain execution.

On Friday, Obama, and the rest of the G8 with his blessing, announced that thinking about more sanctions on Iran can wait until September. And then we can expect yet another round of UN Security Council dickering over minimalist responses to more Iranian stalling tactics, until an Iranian nuclear weapon is inevitable.

Though it is 2202 days since the UN's atomic energy agency first declared that Iran was violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Obama pretends that legitimising those same nuclear-proliferating fascists makes it likelier the clock will stop ticking. Iranians standing up for their allegedly "sacred rights" know Obama has it exactly backwards. Speechifying about "our interconnected world" and "common interests" in Ghana was cold comfort to the voices of Muslim dissidents and Jewish victims deserted in the Obama wilderness.


http://www.theaustralian.news....5777607-7583,00.html
Vita vya panzi (ni) furaha ya kunguru. War among grasshoppers delights the crow. Msema kweli hana wajoli. The speaker of truth has few friends. ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
So I guess the author is more upset that Obama wasn't more critical with Arab nations? NTA I'm curious why you posted this. 19


I posted this because if Obama is motivated by PRINCIPLE, there would be consistancy. US presidents speeches are designed to promote their political or US geopolitical objectives. They should NOT be taken as ligitimate attempts to foster the improvement of the lives of others, but rather, to promote US interest.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
US presidents speeches are designed to promote their political or US geopolitical objectives. They should NOT be taken as ligitimate attempts to foster the improvement of the lives of others, but rather, to promote US interest.


Is it not in the interest of the US to foster the improvement of the lives of others?


If it was then we would be putting a lot more effort into doing so. Hell, we are not even trying to foster the improvement of the lives of the Poor in America, for all intents and purposes.

I mean really....think about it. If the GDP of Africa doubles and the lives and health of people radically improve....what will that mean in regards to population growth on the continent? With less people dying from poverty related factors, there will be an explosion of growth in Africa. Maybe many of you don't realize this...but the West has been trying to control or reduce the population in Africa for the longest. Finite world resources and the environment is coming under strain. The growth of China and India is straining those resources even more, putting extra pollutants into the air. Do you really think that the West wants sto see Africa grow the way China and India is? I don't think so. We are entering an era of diminishing returns relative to population growth, due to the limitations of finite resources and its environmental impact. The world cannot sustain, under the current model, a planet populated with successful nations all with the consumption habits of the West.
Last edited {1}
I disagree with both your initial point, that US presidents speeches should NOT be taken as ligitimate attempts to foster the improvement of the lives of others. The bully pulpit is a/the key diplomatic tool in the presidential tool kit. It is used all the time, by every president.

I also disagree with your secondary point, that US presidents speeches that attempt to foster the improvement of the lives of others do not promote US interest. Again, it's called diplomacy, acknowledgement and diplomacy.

I also disagree with your follow-up response, that we are not even trying to foster the improvement of the lives of the Poor in America, for all intents and purposes. This is patently false histronics. For the record, not following your yet to be disclosed script for improving the lives of the poor here in the US, does not equate to not trying to improve the lot of the poor.

quote:
If the GDP of Africa doubles and the lives and health of people radically improve....


These two do not follow, despite what global free market adherents would have us believe - growth in GDP is only tangentially related to quality of life improvement.

But I agree that the West, either though ommission or commission, has engaged in African "population management" strategies in order to maintain the continent's ready exploitation.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
I disagree with both your initial point, that US presidents speeches should NOT be taken as ligitimate attempts to foster the improvement of the lives of others. The bully pulpit is a/the key diplomatic tool in the presidential tool kit. It is used all the time, by every president.

I also disagree with your secondary point, that US presidents speeches that attempt to foster the improvement of the lives of others do not promote US interest. Again, it's called diplomacy, acknowledgement and diplomacy.

I also disagree with your follow-up response, that we are not even trying to foster the improvement of the lives of the Poor in America, for all intents and purposes. This is patently false histronics. For the record, not following your yet to be disclosed script for improving the lives of the poor here in the US, does not equate to not trying to improve the lot of the poor.


Saying you "disagree" with me is....well...Superfluous. lol I mean...whoda thunk....
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I posted this because if Obama is motivated by PRINCIPLE, there would be consistancy. US presidents speeches are designed to promote their political or US geopolitical objectives. They should NOT be taken as ligitimate attempts to foster the improvement of the lives of others, but rather, to promote US interest.


And THAT is the principal.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I posted this because if Obama is motivated by PRINCIPLE, there would be consistancy. US presidents speeches are designed to promote their political or US geopolitical objectives. They should NOT be taken as ligitimate attempts to foster the improvement of the lives of others, but rather, to promote US interest.


And THAT is the principal.


And THAT is the problem!
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

[i]SPEAKING in Ghana on Saturday, Barack Obama lectured Africans on local repression, corruption, brutality, good governance and accountability. The startling contrast to his June speech in Cairo was revealing.



This paragraph is really all that was needed. Anyone who disagrees that the dude has established a pattern of "speaking" to nonblack audiences and "lecturing" to black audiences isn't being truthful. Some might call that a "tough love" approach or whatever, but the pattern is definitely established. The article should have mentioned the conciliatory tone spoken toward russians as well...
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
This paragraph is really all that was needed. Anyone who disagrees that the dude has established a pattern of "speaking" to nonblack audiences and "lecturing" to black audiences isn't being truthful.


This is one of my issues with Obama.


I don't really have an *issue* with this ... IMO, the 'how' it gets told is not as important as the results that it nets. Personally, I think there are some Black people that do much better with being given directions than they do with taking suggestions. Because given a choice to do the right thing or not ... there answer is "not". sck And we all know how that goes. Roll Eyes

Quick story: I saw a show on TV two nights ago about a 2 y/o baby boy who weighs 187 pounds Eek (I bs you not!) His ignorant-ass mother (who was about 200 lbs overweight herself) was telling the lady that she absolutely, unequivocally, WOULD NOT deny her child food if he was hungry. She couldn't and wouldn't do it. He would open the refrigerator (he was as big as a 4-5 y/o!) and take out whatever he wanted .. and stuff his little fat face with pies and hot dogs and jelly out of the jar. She would give him candy and twinkies and he was eating constantly throughout that entire interview. It was disgusting just watching him. But that disgust was eclipsed by her ignorance to refuse to try to do anything to try to stop it. Roll Eyes Her response: "I don't care what NOBODY says!! He's my child and NOBODY will tell me how to raise him. Not even his father, 'cause I don't care what he has to say, either!"

By the end of that show, I could only wish that the interviewer called CPS on her way out the door. And I normally wouldn't wish them on my worse enemy. But with her (unless she agreed to counseling) it would be the only right thing to do.
quote:
I think there are some Black people that do much better with being given directions than they do with taking suggestions.


lol I guess my issue is not what or even how he says what he says ... only that he seems to save his ire for us; while giving his support to others.

But that reminds me of something ... I remember a discussion in which I accused someone of ascribing to the "white man's ice is colder" theory for his/her constant criticism of Obama. To my accusation, this other person responded that he/she is harder on family than others because he/she has higher expectations for them.

May how times have changed ... apparently Black folks CAN'T be critical of Black folks.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×