The Danger of Ignoring Extremist Rhetoric
On the September 20th Lou Dobbs Show on CNN a panel discussed the attacks on President Bush by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly. I have watched these caustic relationships unfold over time and it strikes me that Americans are not taking these national leaders seriously enough. There is no doubt that they are extreme in their views and in their anti-Americanism, but it is a mistake to mislabel them as simply “anti-Bush” or as the ravings of reckless political leaders. The Bush Administration has made serious mistakes and these have exacerbated latent issues that can trace their roots back to historic interactions between the US and various regions of the world.
The reduction of US influence in Latin America and the swing to more populist social agendas was inevitable at the end of the cold war when many countries no longer felt the imminent threat of communism. Anti-Americanism in Iran stems from decisions beginning with the post WWII powers that supported subsequent Iranian governments, which oppressed their people and culminated with the fall of the Shah and the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. Even though Chavez and Ahmadinejad have extremist views from the American perspective, they still wield significant political, economic, and military influence in their regions. Although it is certainly a stretch, their views hold just enough truth to gain sympathy and support from significant numbers of desperate people in the world who have yet to feel the benefits of the democracy and justice that the US espouses. Therein lies the threat.
Earlier on the same day US Ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, who did not actually attend the UN speeches, made a statement to the effect that he hoped “serious people” would ignore Chavez. Later that evening, the Lou Dobbs Show offered commentary on the same subject by various experts. One commentator pointed out that Chavez had claimed that if the president of the United States gave the people of the world an opportunity to speak their minds they would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home!”
Another panel member flippantly responded something to the effect of “No….they’d say, ‘Give me a visa!” […to legally enter the United States].
He may as well have said “Let them eat cake!” as many people incorrectly believe French Queen Marie Antoinette did when informed that her people could no longer afford bread. What is true, is that a genuinely neglected and oppressed portion of the population, whipped into a fury by intensive anti-government propaganda, and likely supported by external governments put the queen and her husband to the guillotine in 1793.
Legend or not, it is a lesson that we should take to heart.
According to the World Bank, some 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Many of these people go to bed hungry at night and must marvel at the excess of natural resources, leisure items, and food that nations like the US consume. What’s more, our global credibility as the champion of the oppressed is weakened by the fact that we were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and our actions in Iraq. We have arguably disregarded our own constitutional principles by torturing people and detaining them without due process, and we have lied about secret prisons and other issues that the United States has traditionally denounced. Why wouldn’t these people believe what Ahmadinejad and Chavez have to say?
It is understandable that US officials are not attending these speeches. Why should we legitimize extreme hatred and radical views? Some people even believe that President Bush should not have addressed the UN on the same day as Ahmadinejad. The real question is: What alternative message are we sending to the politically powerless and desperate people of the world? If you look and listen from their perspectives the extremist views ring true.
This is why the radical Islam preached by Osama bin Laden and others finds sympathy and support—and most importantly, people willing to kill and commit suicide to promote it. Beyond the messages we should be sending, how should we act to legitimize our own rhetoric? Do these people actually feel positive results from our current foreign policy and the objectives for which Americans are at war? Progress to date in Iraq would indicate that we are failing in that regard.
Globalization in all respects is occurring at an ever-increasing rate—to include the globalization of insurgencies like Al-Qaeda. International travel, even with enhanced security post 9/11 is far easier than it was just 50 years ago. Mass communication has expanded exponentially via digital media and the internet, and radical ideas are reaching people and generating sympathy as never before. Global competition between nations is growing more intense for scarce natural resources, and more and more people are learning exactly what we in the “first world” take for granted—and they do not.
Many historians believe that Marie Antoinette actually responded to the political and economic crisis facing her husband’s government by hosting charity events and attempting to decrease the cost of running the royal household. Of course, it was much too little, much too late, and did nothing substantial that her desperate people could actually feel.
Blindly ignoring the rhetoric of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is clearly not the answer. Changing our foreign policy so that it better addresses the root causes of global inequality is the only way to make their rhetoric ineffective and eliminate the underlying threat it represents.
The reduction of US influence in Latin America and the swing to more populist social agendas was inevitable at the end of the cold war when many countries no longer felt the imminent threat of communism. Anti-Americanism in Iran stems from decisions beginning with the post WWII powers that supported subsequent Iranian governments, which oppressed their people and culminated with the fall of the Shah and the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. Even though Chavez and Ahmadinejad have extremist views from the American perspective, they still wield significant political, economic, and military influence in their regions. Although it is certainly a stretch, their views hold just enough truth to gain sympathy and support from significant numbers of desperate people in the world who have yet to feel the benefits of the democracy and justice that the US espouses. Therein lies the threat.
Earlier on the same day US Ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, who did not actually attend the UN speeches, made a statement to the effect that he hoped “serious people” would ignore Chavez. Later that evening, the Lou Dobbs Show offered commentary on the same subject by various experts. One commentator pointed out that Chavez had claimed that if the president of the United States gave the people of the world an opportunity to speak their minds they would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home!”
Another panel member flippantly responded something to the effect of “No….they’d say, ‘Give me a visa!” […to legally enter the United States].
He may as well have said “Let them eat cake!” as many people incorrectly believe French Queen Marie Antoinette did when informed that her people could no longer afford bread. What is true, is that a genuinely neglected and oppressed portion of the population, whipped into a fury by intensive anti-government propaganda, and likely supported by external governments put the queen and her husband to the guillotine in 1793.
Legend or not, it is a lesson that we should take to heart.
According to the World Bank, some 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Many of these people go to bed hungry at night and must marvel at the excess of natural resources, leisure items, and food that nations like the US consume. What’s more, our global credibility as the champion of the oppressed is weakened by the fact that we were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and our actions in Iraq. We have arguably disregarded our own constitutional principles by torturing people and detaining them without due process, and we have lied about secret prisons and other issues that the United States has traditionally denounced. Why wouldn’t these people believe what Ahmadinejad and Chavez have to say?
It is understandable that US officials are not attending these speeches. Why should we legitimize extreme hatred and radical views? Some people even believe that President Bush should not have addressed the UN on the same day as Ahmadinejad. The real question is: What alternative message are we sending to the politically powerless and desperate people of the world? If you look and listen from their perspectives the extremist views ring true.
This is why the radical Islam preached by Osama bin Laden and others finds sympathy and support—and most importantly, people willing to kill and commit suicide to promote it. Beyond the messages we should be sending, how should we act to legitimize our own rhetoric? Do these people actually feel positive results from our current foreign policy and the objectives for which Americans are at war? Progress to date in Iraq would indicate that we are failing in that regard.
Globalization in all respects is occurring at an ever-increasing rate—to include the globalization of insurgencies like Al-Qaeda. International travel, even with enhanced security post 9/11 is far easier than it was just 50 years ago. Mass communication has expanded exponentially via digital media and the internet, and radical ideas are reaching people and generating sympathy as never before. Global competition between nations is growing more intense for scarce natural resources, and more and more people are learning exactly what we in the “first world” take for granted—and they do not.
Many historians believe that Marie Antoinette actually responded to the political and economic crisis facing her husband’s government by hosting charity events and attempting to decrease the cost of running the royal household. Of course, it was much too little, much too late, and did nothing substantial that her desperate people could actually feel.
Blindly ignoring the rhetoric of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is clearly not the answer. Changing our foreign policy so that it better addresses the root causes of global inequality is the only way to make their rhetoric ineffective and eliminate the underlying threat it represents.
1 Comments:
Did you hear Bill Clinton is interested in heading up the U.N.? He would certainly be someone taken more seriously I would think?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home