The tragedy of Barack Obama - 19 May 2009

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States was welcomed all over the world. Even in Sri Lanka, though obviously the Bush approach to terrorism had helped us, and though John McCain was more likely to be tough on terror, an idealistic young President with no hang ups about race or ideology seemed by far the better bet for the world.

And there was no particular reason it seemed to worry about Sri Lanka, since he had dealt with it from the start in a very adult manner, talking only about the problems of ‘othering’. There was no trace of the selectivity which had led Hillary Clinton to talk about a not too bad type of terrorism, which seemed a dangerous indulgence at the time, early in the campaign, when the Tigers were funding her singlemindedly.

This caused some worry when she was made Secretary of State, but since she had dissociated herself from such funding, and since it seemed likely that President Obama would take the lead in foreign policy, we like the rest of the world looked forward to the return of Camelot, the commitment to a better world based on equity that had seemed nearly half a century ago to characterise the Kennedy Presidency too. Indeed my fear was that, if he moved too quickly to fulfil his ideals, President Obama would find himself abhorred by the old traditionalists, who might well try to get rid of him.

I need not have worried. Sooner than one thought, President Obama has learned to conform. The latest news that he might prove less than forthcoming on the torture practiced by America after 9/11 is only the frosting on a cake that was baked in the fires of the bombs that fell on Afghanistan.

At first the Obama strategy had seemed admirable. Those of us who thought the war against Afghanistan an acceptable war, based as it was on a clear United Nations resolution that was grounded in the undeniable fact of 9/11, had also marked the clear distinction between that and Iraq, where Anglo-American adventurism manufactured false dossiers, ignored the UN and charged in with no understanding of what victory would mean. The fact that that adventure took away valuable resources from Afghanistan, and also destroyed the universal goodwill that America had received after 9/11, added greater acceptability to President Obama’s decision to withdraw soon from Iraq and put more resources into Afghanistan.

But somehow one had thought that that meant greater concern about hearts and minds. True, more troops might be necessary, but I had not thought this meant massive attacks, and attacks that would lead to so much indiscriminate slaughter. I suppose I should have been used to the idea from my awareness of what American scale ups had meant elsewhere, but I had thought times had changed, and that President Obama would be different. But, sadly, nothing seems to have changed and, sincere though he might be in his sorrow at the unnecessary deaths, when he leaves it to Hillary Clinton to deal with the brunt of the damage, not only does he detract from his own image, he promotes an image of insincerity that may be unfair, but which her performance on the campaign trail has solidified.

What will happen in Afghanistan then is worrying, and also what will happen in Iraq, as the immediate consequences of swift American withdrawal seem to bode ill for those who have worked with them. And meanwhile in Israel there seems increasing intransigence on the part of the new government, which is likely to put paid to what seemed the most positive part of the Obama agenda. Of course we have to see how he will deal with Benjamin Netanyahu, but the existing balance between them, the singlemindedness of the latter and President Obama’s shifts in the last couple of weeks, gives little hope of reform.

With all this shifting into the conservative corner, it was likely that President Obama would somehow want to prove his liberal credentials. Sadly for Sri Lanka, that idea occurred to someone who felt the cause of the Tigers needed shoring up, and we had an article in ‘Time’ that seems to have played very effectively on the Obama heartstrings. I hasten to add that there was still adherence to the old American principle in such matters, when he did issue a statement, with the call for the Tigers to surrender, but for the rest there was little understanding of how much Sri Lanka has done to deal with the Tigers firmly but correctly as regards its obligations under international humanitarian law. Thus there was no mention of the enormity of Tiger hostage taking, of the relative success with which hostages had been freed at regular intervals, of the brutal attempts to prevent the hostages getting away, which had led to ruthless mass killing.

No wonder then that Tigers demonstrated joyously opposite the White House Lawn after the Presidential pronouncement. And no wonder that there was no softening then of the Tiger stand, but instead increased intransigence. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton, who had sounded balanced on Sri Lanka initially, swung wildly after her meeting with David Miliband, and began talking about a Ceasefire, and even talks with the Tigers, whereas it was the Americans who had initially been most principled about not dealing with terrorists.

Since then she has either been totally carried away by the Miliband charm or else fallen into the category described by an admittedly conservative friend – ‘these people have no foreign policy at all – only a cosy “liberal” ideology the enunciation of which is designed solely to impress each other’. The result is anarchy as far as the Sri Lankan situation is concerned, Clinton and Miliband vying to wear bleeding hearts on their sleeves and poor President Obama thinking this the best scenario in which to restore the liberal credentials he is in danger of abandoning elsewhere.

With luck the results of the Indian election will bring him back to his senses as far as this part of South Asia is concerned, and he will realise that he must promote stability here too, without taking any chances. But what he has said even thus far has contributed to supporters of terrorism in the diaspora thinking they can keep the struggle going, using the same methods as previously – secure in the knowledge that there will always be double standards available for those who know how to work them effectively. And meanwhile the ideals one had hoped would be applied generally will shrink into an acceptable space, while naked self interest will once more be the main guiding principle of the foreign policy that shapes the world.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process