Wednesday, 28 January 2009
For the last seven years, the US has witnessed a significant decline in its image all over the world. Primarily following 9/11 attacks, ethnocentrism has played the major facilitator role in the foreign policy of the US. The Iraq war especially represents one of the most important policy decisions of the US President, who declared completion of the mission, which has proven itself as a very early statement to make. Bush and his team generally preferred to act unilaterally when it came to the so-called “right to preemptive strike” against the targets, who they believe have conceived vicious plans contrary to US interests.
Another area which damaged the image of the US was the violation of fundamental values and human rights. Those violations have been justified by the Bush administration as protecting Americans and preserving peace and stability in the world. That was a rather self-destructive claim which in a sense created its own risks and dangers, not only for the US citizens and other western countries, but also for the people in other parts of the world.
These actions on the side of the US were at the expense of a more secure and more prosperous world. The fact is for some, the world might be more secure without Saddam Hussein or other despotic and barbaric individuals; however, the way through which they have been removed from power may create a vacuum as a result of which the world now faces different types of risks.
Obama Era
During his election campaign, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has used the motto “Change We Believe In”. President Obama delivered a message in his inauguration speech. Between the lines of the speech, he gave profound messages to the Muslim countries. In his speech he said;
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
The speech involves a kind of manifestation and another big shift in how the US will shape the foreign policy issues. This section of the speech represents a “change” in the attitude of the US. It is a “change” from ethnocentric ideology, which means “you are what we think you are.” The explanation of this is that we know your problems and we are the only one who can solve it. On the contrary, what President Obama was stating is to hold the leaders of other countries responsible for their own problems.
He also extends his will to work together with other countries to solve their problems. He proposes a totally new approach and dictates “a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect”. That is also another fundamental “change”.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
The tone and the content of the speech offer a transformation from a unilateral approach to understanding of the need for a multilateral-cooperative approach -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations--.
Not just the war in Iraq but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the Georgia-Russia crisis, and others stood up before the new US President Obama as formidable challenges. Obama, who came to the oval office with the promise of “change,” will have tough time realizing what he has been promising, not just for the US citizens, but for the rest of the people in the world.
Actions speak louder than words
As the American saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.” It is after all a matter of time whether the Obama administration will be able to realize what they promise. But from the first impressions, it is safe to say that the new administration in the White House approaches the issues in a fundamentally different way than the previous administration.
What we have been witnessing is that from the very first day in his office, Obama showed the international community that he indeed is very serious about what he was pledging. By giving an executive order on “Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities,” “Review of Detention Policy Options,” and “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” he is for the “change” for good. These are the crucial issues by which the image of the US has been hammered down throughout the previous administration.
These three Presidential Orders are crucial for several reasons. First of all, even though the international community has been aware of the fact that the US has been struggling against terrorism, any action taken by the US under this title represented significant deviation from democracy and human rights, both of which were also defended by the US in the past. People were starting to think that these values were like relics from the past. In other words, the US puts itself in a situation in which it has had credibility problems.
Secondly, such unlawful actions by the US have been exploited by the extremist groups to recruit new members, to widen their area of activity, and to justify their actions.
Thirdly, the US has been taken as an example by other countries, or at least they used these policies, to justify their unlawful actions and implementations.
Fourth, these kinds of policies silenced the moderate voices in the regions where democracy, fundamental values, and human rights were nowhere to be found.
Finally, this ethnocentric approach strengthened the radical voices even in the democratic world, nothing to be surprised of course in other countries as well.
If we are to analyze the executive orders, there are crucial points to mention in terms of their potential to revoke radicalization, to avoid deviation from democracy, empowering humanitarian spirit, and most of all fixing the damage that has been done in recent years.
For example, the “Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities” Executive Order states the following;
In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo.
Here in this executive order, there is a fundamental “change” as to how the Obama administration views the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and detention facilities. While the Bush administration had considered these facilities as a “must” for an effective counterterrorism measure, for Obama administration, the closure of them serves as a mechanism to “further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice”.
Furthermore, in another Executive Order, “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations,” the term, “revocation” itself represents the ultimate “change” from the security policy perception of previous administration. In this order it is directed that
Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order.
The significance of the order is that it also gives references to the Geneva Convention. Especially “violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" have been prohibited by this order. Under the “Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation” section, any action by the US officials which may involve inadequate handling of the individuals who are in the US custody is prohibited.
Anyone can recall the discussion in the US over the issue of approving cruel treatment or torture to obtain valuable intelligence from the detainees. In fact, the former vice president has endorsed such treatment as acceptable.
President Obama’s executive order over “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” represents one of the most important policy shifts. It is a courageous attempt to reconstruct or to repair the damage on the US image in the world. It is a big jump from depreciation of human value to providing security while staying within the limits of principles of “rule of law”.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to develop policies for the detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations that are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows: ….. There shall be established a Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition (Special Task Force) to identify lawful options for the disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations. January 22, 2009
Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and detention centers have become symbols of maltreatment, torture, deviance from rule of law in counterterrorism in the Bush era. For example Abu Ghraib prison was seen as humiliation of human dignity and was an astonishing time for the US, who claimed they went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam’s regime. Detention centers were considered the namesake of “enduring pressure and imprisonment” for the imagined or future crime.
These facilities have been used to create new symbols for the terrorist organizations. Symbols represent embedded messages for the concerned individuals. They include meaning, values, ambitions, revenges, and the like. While picture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib have created outrages, humiliation, and desire for revenge, a shoe thrown at the former President Bush was indeed the very expressions of that revenge. The later one may seem a small incident; but as a symbol that was a message which was telling the story about the image of the US in the Middle East. Obama’s executive orders put forward hopes for change and most of all source of anticipation and optimism for the future.
Opportunities and Restrains
Opportunities come with their risks and potential dangers. Opportunities also have their restraints. An opportunity in one case can be the restraining factor in the same case.
The current situation can be an opportunity for the Obama administration to show before the world that the US still represents universal values and human rights. But due to thin line between security and liberties, it is very difficult to hold on to these “changes”. There will be attempts to hinder Obama’s endeavor to lead his country to cooperate, to be more respectful of fundamental human rights, and to become a more secure country. It can be of interest to specific groups, including terrorists, to live in a more marginalized and radical environment as oppose to stable and peaceful environments.
It is necessary to address that Obama and his team should be patient and resistant to any attempt to challenge them. They should be aware of the fact that US policies for the last seven years have had dramatic impact over many communities in the world. It will take more than a closure of a detention center or revoking unlawful policies and implementations to restore confidence in those societies. These are very crucial starts, but they should be supported by other tangible implementations, policies, and actions from the US government.
For the Obama administration, believing in change is a good start; realizing that, however, mandates persistence and resilient determination both at home and overseas.
References:
Executive order -- review of detention policy options: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/
Review and disposition of individuals detained at the guantánamo bay naval base and closure of detention facilities:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities/
Obama's inaugural speech:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/index.html
Afghanistan – Pakistan Turmoil: The US Misconception of the Region? 
