RSS

June 4, 2009

Gregor Schueler, University of St Andrews, Silver Contributor (35)

Apologies uttered when cornered, when hoping for an escape, hoping for mercy, those are signs of weaknesses. They are a last resort, the last way out.
Obama's words today were words of humble strength and understanding. The ball's in your court Islamic world!

The speech Obama gave today breaks with the realist tradition of American Foreign Policy.
He is willing to cooperate to admit mistakes made in the past and engage in dialogue. The Bush administration showed great reluctance to do this, but it strengthens the USA's moral case, which of late had become a battered shell for political and cultural imperialism.
The Article mentions the weapons tests that North Korea and Iran have conducted recently. What answer does Mitt Romney suggest? Unilateral threats or sanctions? Invasion? The wider international community needs to get involved in the solutions of these conflicts and I thought Obama's speech approached these issues sensibly. China and Russia are beginning to understand the threat of nuclear armed isolationist states. America now needs to make an increased effort to rally the world on its side and to gain the support of the rest of the middle east.

Obama also commented on other issues such as democracy, women's rights, economical development and Israel. Most of what he said is fairly common sense to most Europeans even conservatives. For an American however some of what he said will seem controversial and the Republicans will grapple to wrap their heads around this new approach to IR, but eventually they will have to understand that in order to create a more peaceful international system dialogue and the ability of self criticism will be vital if the United States are to survive as a benevolent superpower.

June 4, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

"humble strength and understanding"?!!!!

That's a bit of a chuckle. It's still early days and the Real Obama has yet to stand forth, but I think there is good evidence that he may be the coldest, most arrogant person to hold the office since FDR - and that's saying something.

Note that he's 'apologizing' for the supposed mistakes of others - he doesn't apologize for his own mistakes. Probably because he doesn't think he's made any, but perhaps because at core he doesn't believe he's capable of making a mistake.

All this 'dialogue' rhetoric is just PR - so far at least. A dialog takes both parties willing to talk and make concessions. So where do we see that so far? Iran? North Korea? Hell, do we even see it in Germany and France?

It's moonshine until there are solid results.

June 4, 2009

Gregor Schueler, University of St Andrews, Silver Contributor (35)

Fair do's, but don't underestimate the power of language.
Language shapes perceptions and attitudes, and a change in those is definitely needed.
The nature of the conflict between Islam and the west is mainly a construct of cultural and social differences, differences that can be argued to be constructed at least in part by language as well.
Would the previous administration ever have used the type of language and vocabulary Obama uses? You can call it PR and we certainly do have to wait and see what the results are, but it still represents a shift in attitude.

I've heard a few people call Obama arrogant, and he may very well be, but the description 'humble and understanding' was aimed mainly at the use of words and what the convey not his personality.

June 4, 2009

Hans Reuther-Fix

Apolopgy does not represent a sign of weakness or strength, it is rather a Western all inclusive for apologia, excuse, plea, pretext and alibi.
In geo-political terms it serves as a justification or defense of an act ( such as a war by choice ) or an idea ( as capital assistance by third party ), especially after hidden agendas
are uncovered and become open knowledge.(such as imperial intentions ).
In early America's West instead of " apologize " the term " I beg your pardon " was
commonly used out of self- recognition and admission of human misconduct.
It also defined a first step to repentance, as a change of thought and action to correct a wrong. It also includes a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense.
In biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two verbs:" to return" and
" to feel sorrow ". Translated in Greek the word is " metanoia " or "to think differently after".
The word " Tawbah " ( Repentance ) in Arabic literally means " to return " and is mentioned in the Qur'an. In the Islamic context, it refers to the act of leaving what Allah Has prohibited and returning to what He Has Commanded.
The argument alone whether apologies by the West represent a sign of weakness or strength when trying to partner with Arabic Cultures and Islam is ill advised.

HRF

June 5, 2009

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Apologies can cause problems only if they are insincere. I suspect that Mr. Obama is too intelligent to apologize for something that he might contemplate doing in the future. Perhaps those who object to his making apologies are themselves looking forward to doing things again in the future.

June 5, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1100)

Official apologies in international politics getting increasingly popular from about Clinton time, but are restricted to the Western (Latin Christian) sphere of culture. That's why the Japanese never apologise officially for their war crimes, that's why the Turkish authorities do not take any blame for the Armenian genocide, that is why the Ukrainians never acknowledged ethnic cleansing on their Polish neigbours in 1940's or the Russians - they never take any blame at all. Apologies are seen as a signh of strenght only by those who are able and ready to apologise themselves, those who not, see it as a sign of weakness. Therefore, apology by a mighty Western leader is a move towards internal political market rather than of any significance outside.

June 5, 2009

Gesine Palmer, wiis.de, Bronze Contributor (21)

Apologies do acknowledge two basic facts in relations between people and peoples: 1. that there IS history, in which more than mistakes can have been made, 2. that an imbalance between people and peoples can only be replaced by mutual acknowledgement and respect once the stronger part has admitted its mistakes. I can in no way understand speculations about Obama's "arrogant" personality. He was speaking as representative of the West. He did so in a way that was deeply aware of the basic presuppositions for dialogue: balance and equal rights of partners. The most daring sentence was that he can understand that people don't understand why one country should have nucear weapons and another not. This is - daring though it seems to be today - an important step forward, as it is the first step to invite the Muslim world to serious partnership. Without this the destructive mechanisms of an existential fight for power can in no way be interrupted. And Obama's speech was not as weak as to neglect questions of human rights.
As to the cultural differences concerning apology: To restore our own self-image by apologizing for things we really regret, makes us stronger and flexible. If we stick to hiding and veiling a real fault we are much less flexible and will sooner or later fall prey to the fate that all tyranny has always been destined to suffer. If we admit and change our minds, we have the power to begin a new era. Another thing is, however, apology under pressure and for things you even didn't do, or, if you did, cannot really regret as your judgement concerning the circumstances is different. Here it is stronger not to give in and apologize. But a clearing of matters is always helpful. It does not prevent every fall, but a fall in truth is somehow stronger than a fall with violence and lies, isn't it?
Only when cleared from the necessity to veil unjust decisions are we able to begin with juster decisions, and to stick firmly to our consequent views concerning human rights, freedom and so on. The reaction in those who felt humiliated approves the matter. It was the right speech at the right time delivered by the right person in the right office. If he should in case be proud of it (and all who assisted in producing it, with him) I won't begrudge him that pride. We have to get rid of our addiction to having enemies, which might be the most dificult thing to achieve in the world. Respect towards differences and distances, and the ability to apologize in a position of strength are most important elements to this. If other cultures don't take them that seriously, it is up to them now, to explain this to us, I'd say.

June 5, 2009

Bernhard Müller

@ Marek et all

Germany has apologized a lot for its past crimes and now has good relationships with Israel, France, Poland and other former victims of German wrongdoing.

Japan has not apologized to South Korea or China. And Japan continues to have strained relations with these countries.

Ergo: It helps to apologize. Apologies can advance the national interest.

June 5, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1100)

@ Bernhard
True, but you have to admit it was not the german authorities who first extended the hand to Poland. And after the famous letter of Catholic bishops in 1965 the authorities kept waiting for years. The symbolic kneeling of Chancellor Brandt at the Ghetto Memorial in Warsaw came in 1970, but it wasn't until Chancellor Kohl that we saw full apology and reconciliation gesture.

June 5, 2009

Marc Lewis Thomas, Cardiff University, (9)

I don't think it's entirely false to say that in the last 8 years particularly, American politics has been marked by a 'command and conquer' mentality.

Notwithstanding our view on whether or not the war on terror (or battles, as some Americans may argue) were just or the ethic behind them, in a large context, American citizens have been acting in a kind of schizophrenic state i.e. one characterised by a seemingly unwavering support (which is not abnormal for a country at war) but at the same time with a niggling 'subcurrent' of scepticism.

Coming to the end of a period of almost constant invasion (on their part of course), I do not think that the entirity of Americans would object to apologising for the treatment of the Muslim world or the way many European states were victimised by large groups of society - does anyone remember 'Victory Fries'?

In fact, it is a common sentiment that after a war or conflict against another country, there is a kind of guilt that falls on a nation even if a justified cause was found in their minds. For example, German people were not the only ones left feeling guilty about their treatment of other nations during the Second World War - from which they are still suffering today it is often argued. Many people from other western states felt guilty over the things that happened during this tumultuous period of history.

Of course, in political speeches, there is almost always a political motive. Private feelings are for private settings. However, is it possible, that in the case of apologising for the maltreatment of a race, there is actually a much deeper socio-psychological set of issues at play and not just the skin-deep political influence to be gained?

@ Gregor Schueler
"China and Russia are beginning to understand the threat of nuclear armed isolationist states. America now needs to make an increased effort to rally the world on its side and to gain the support of the rest of the middle east." - This is an interesting point you make. It would make a really interesting article in my opinion.

Marc

June 6, 2009

Simone Schuster

Obama has gone too far with his outreach approch. Now he is even meeting with the pirates in the White House:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/05/the-obamas-and-fri...

June 8, 2009

Mahid (Sudanese Guardian)

to be honest from reading the article I was wondering a lot about the fact that President Obama did try to heal the US relationship with the Arab and Muslim world but i thought he was trying to heal it by separating the extremist ideas who think that Islam is all about violence from the regular Muslim who want peace, security and a better tomorrow. I think president Obama send a message to the Middle East and the Muslim world that we can work together for a better world. That we can stop crimes, violence and extremism in the region. Yes he did apologize to some extent but I believe Mr. President Message was more about working tougher then about apologize. I say this of course we great respect to the author of this article. Thank you

Mahid (Sudanese Guardian)
http://sudaneseguardian.blogspot.com/

June 8, 2009

Atena Stefania Feraru, National Chung Hsing University, (3)

Whether apologizing represents strength or weakness depends on the context as well as on the way it is made. In this particular case, of president Obama's speech in Egypt, apology was made with dignity and served two important functions. The first was to create the necessary environment for transforming US relations with the Muslim world. In order for president Obama to lay the foundation for such a new relationship, he had to separate himself and his administartion from the previous one. In order for the Middle East countries and US to start building a relationship of comprehensive cooperation, the first have to stop seeing the current administration through the lenses of of the previous one. Thus, the apology actually repositions US in relation with the Muslim world within the international community. Without comparing the Bush administration with the Nazi, the recent apology of president Obama serves a similar function as Germany's apologies for the holocoust. Was that a sign of weakness? would Japan's apology for the Nanking masacre or for the plight of Korean comfort women be a sign of weakness? or Serbian apologies for the atrocieties in Kosovo? or Turkey's for the Armenian genocide?
A second important function the the apology for previous mistakes made by Obama in his recent speech serves is to reassure the European Union. Following the war in Iraq, the US-EU close partnership started to loosen. There is a very strong public opinion within the EU against the war in Iraq and the suffering that followed (which is ungoing) and PM Tony Blair was forced to resign as a result of joining the coalition of the willing.
By limiting the scope of the "war against terrorism" by adopting a strict understanding of "terrorism", the Obama administration might just be able to raly the support of the Middle East and EU. I think that apologizing for past mistakes was a critical first step in achieving this.

June 8, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I count myself as a little of an Obama skeptic even though I voted for him last year, but I have to concurr with Ms. Stefania - I think the address in Cairo was generally well-done and a down payment on what I hoped he would be doing in foreign policy.

The overall speech was far from being a comprehensive apology, but the press has taken a small if important facet of the speech and have run with it.

By far the most important part of the speech was the location, the audience, and the timing (early in the administration).

June 9, 2009

Simone Schuster

The Daily Mail is not pleased either: "President Obama continues to embrace tyrannical enemies, while scorning the democratically elected leaders of our longtime allies."
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/06/05/germany-is-the-late...

June 9, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

I wonder how Obama's speech can be labeled "apology". I did not hear or read any line saying "I am sorry".

The political right in the U.S. is trying to present an equation: apology=weakness=bad president, and I am wondering how many people are willing to follow that logic.

What Obama said it just common sense, which every reasonable and educated person should be willing to sign. Without moral fundamentals such as stated in his speech, where could be the basis to negotiate?

Obama's speech was interpreted as an apology which in fact is long overdue, but not from Obama, but the members of the Bush administration. And I don't think that could suffice: the only right consequence to torture and invasions should be trials in Den Hague. Jailing Cheney is the only answer for the state terrorism which he initiated.