Summer CE Week #2: “The senator’s Berlin speech was radical and naive.”
By John R. Bolton
July 26, 2008
SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it “allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer.”
If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.
These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama’s thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign’s carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.
First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, “The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.” Having earlier proclaimed himself “a fellow citizen of the world” with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”
Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — “eastern politics,” a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.
But there are larger implications to Obama’s rediscovery of the “one world” concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War’s realities.
The successes Obama refers to in his speech — the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism — were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by “one-worldism.” Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.
Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: “The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn’t see all these “walls” as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.
Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side — our side — defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively “tearing down walls” with our adversaries.
Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a “united” world.
The best we can hope for is that Obama’s rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.
John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option.”
Well John Bolton is a hawk. Pro-war. Appointed as ambassador from an internship in Bush’s administration. Of course he will be against the idea of a unified world. He’s got the Team America point of view going on. It seems to me though that Obama is- although idealistic- shooting for the most relevant goal we have to achieve on this planet. If the world can’t work as one then big issues like nuclear war and the climate crisis will start spitting in our faces. Even if the US pulled itself together and started to fix the issue of our rapidly devestating climate problem, we are still only one small part of the world. We aren’t the only ones with climate and resource problems. With CHina having a population of almost 2 billion people and India not far behind, how will we support them all? It’s not an individual problem. It’s a world issue. OBama seems to be the only one who seems to be striving for that. And McCain is just going to criticize him for being too idealistic? It’s ridiculous.
Mr. Bolton brings up a very good point when speaking of the world as “united.” He says that even the Europeans who dislike America with a passion would not want to see us as “just one more nation in a ‘united’ world.” As a wealthy and democratic nation, it is our job to help the suffering nations of our world. If we didn’t, we would be guilty of neglecting those who need our help the most. Obama is against the war in Iraq, so are many Americans. But have you ever asked a war critic, not a professional one just a regular American critic, why they oppose the war. Many say it is because of the many deaths inflicted upon our troops, or that the Iraqis don’t want us anymore. I agree with both statements, to a degree. Yes, there have been many deaths in Iraq, but not nearly as many as any other war the US has been involved in. As to the fact that the Iraqis don’t want us, of course there are those that don’t want us anymore, but is the American public aware of how many women and children can now walk around freely without the fear of being killed or raped? Obama has stated, “Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.” When redecorating a room, don’t you first have to clear everything out, in essence, make a mess of the room? The room might not look so great for a while, but you start to see the new beauty poking through with the new paint color, new curtains, and in the end the room is much more beautiful and well put together than the old room. I know that a country is much harder to change than a room, but no change looks great through the entire change. Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a large decrease in violence and Iraq is rid of an evil and disgusting dictator. I have gone down a bunny trail from the article but I think it was relevant. Just like the author said, “Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side — our side — defeated the other.” In order to continue to “tear down walls” we must continue to find for freedom, justice, and democracy in our world.
The concept of “one world” may be an idealistic concept at that. As Obama referenced the various walls that separate various people, he was quite naïve to believe that all of those walls could be torn down. The walls that exist between countries and cultures do not solely exist are a large scale. Walls also exist between people that cross paths on a daily basis. As the article stated, the walls exist because of real differences that could lead to conflict. It would probably be more realistic to turn walls into fences. The site selected for such a concept to be received was quite strategic. As the site of decades of obvious conflict, Berlin stands as brimming example to give some kind of substance to Obama’s idea. As stated in the article, the Berlin Wall was torn down because communism was worn down and basically defeated by a strong alliance. If the world was standing as one, what challenges would there be to face? I find it very difficult to even imagine a unified world. How would Obama suggest that this concept of “one world” be turned into a reality? I am very interested in some speeches that would bring a bit more content that would discuss that slogan of change in some detailed manner.
let’s face it, Obama’s comparison of the tearing down of the Berlin wall to the walls that exist “between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew” and their need to be torn down was not the best use of a metaphor. He is, although naive, on the right track. THe Berlin wall was torn because “one side — our side — defeated the other.” and im not sure that that would be the right approach to the other issues that are keeping our world from being as unified as it could be. On the other hand the differences and problems need to be dealt with and our world would be extremely beneficial to act as “one world.” Obama may be naive and his goals may be far from reach, but they are the the type of aspirations this country needs to look forward to. Whether the journey gets us closer by an inch or a mile, we are still closer to being a world acting as one. The benefits of creating a bond with your fellow countries is that instead of it being a competition to be the best country and be closer to fixing the world wide issues, we can work together and actually get the job done quick and more efficient.
Mr. Bolton is certainly seeing history in his own way. This guy hates communism, probably hated the USSR, and obviously hates having someone compare then and now. Somebody needs to tell him that people have been using allusions since there were things to allude to. As to his main point, about a united world that he sees as so unbecoming, I firmly believe that he could not be more wrong. I want a united world. People don’t have to see things in the same light; Mr. Bolton doesn’t have to fear for individualism. I, and apparently Sen. Obama, just want the world to stand together. Not that that’s going to happen anytime soon. People have been losing the values I hold most dear for a long time: loyalty, trustworthiness, and unity. One for all and all for one mentality. Snitches are everywhere, and they’re just “telling the truth.” That’s not right. The idea shouldn’t be stand up for what you believe in. It should be stand together for what you believe in. It’s okay to argue; I do it all the time. I just think that we should be able to stop once in a while. Set aside differences to get something done. Arguing takes time and money, and sometimes is wasteful. If everyone could believe in unity and hold to it, more problems could be solved in the occasional silence we could agree upon. That’s not going to happen, though. People will never be unselfish enough to sacrifice for the greater good, unless there’s a common enemy. Common enemies can make people ignore their own whims and fight for what’s best for everyone. But that’s survival instinct. Unless there’s an alien invasion, we, the people of the world who believe in unity, will just have to live without unity. Nothing but a common enemy will galvanize the people of the world to unite. I also think that Martian invasion is pretty unlikely. But it’s too bad, because, despite what Mr. Bolton thinks, unity is not just a beautiful idea. It’s also efficient.