The President That Didn’t

A youthful promise: Senator Obama

Former US Presidents resemble zombies: physically, they seem alive; but for all practical purposes, they are as good as dead.  That’s why any attempt to sum up their term in office inevitably sounds like an obituary.

About nine years ago, a relatively young, unknown US senator was bursting into the limelight of world’s attention, as presidential candidate.  Although few would admit it, it was – initially at least –the colour of his skin and his unusual name that made him a favourite, not just among African Americans, but also among liberals of every race and nationality, those eagerly seeking oppressed minorities in need of saving.

But Barack Obama was not just another African American candidate.  He was the perfect one: the exact opposite not just of George W. Bush, but also of Jesse Jackson.  He won over large parts of the American mainstream vote, because he was calm and not angry; because his demeanour was cerebral, rather than emotional; because he spoke on behalf of all Americans, not in the name of African Americans.  More than his policies, his charisma, his personal charm and his obvious intelligence carried him to fair and square victory not in one, but in two presidential elections.

Luck was on his side, too: he presided over no major national calamity – no 9/11, no Hurricane Katrina; by the time he took the helm, the worst of the credit crunch was over – and that financial disaster certainly couldn’t be attributed to him.

President Obama's second term job approval percentages

He seemed to hold (no pun intended!) all the trump cards.  And yet… and yet Barack Obama spent the bulk of his second presidential term with negative approval rates.  Why?

To understand the reason, one has to go back in time, to 22 January 2009.  In his second day in office, newly-anointed US President Barack Obama issued his first Executive Order: he directed that the Guantánamo Bay prison camp be closed within a year.

Yes, within a year.  But, eight years later, ‘Gitmo’ is still there – and around five dozen prisoners still linger in geographical and legal limbo.  Obama’s supporters will say that his deep, sincere desire to close down Guantánamo has been not just opposed, but sabotaged at every step.  And perhaps it was.  But that’s no excuse for a man in his position: after all, it was another US President (Truman) who displayed on his desk a sign with the wistful words ‘The buck stops here!’

More than anything else, it is the Guantánamo debacle that characterises Obama’s presidency.  And, more than anything else, that combination of good intentions and little to show for them explains the popular verdict of under-performance.  Because, in the eyes of the most pragmatic nation on earth, he seemed to want a lot, but do very little.  Sure, he was opposed; no doubt, the US political system – designed by America’s Founding Fathers above all to prevent tyranny – strongly curtails presidential power.  And yet, ‘The buck stops here!’  Navigating that difficult political system (not by issuing executive orders, but by cajoling and threatening, by wheeling and dealing) is – or should be – one of the President’s most essential skills.

Nobody gains respect by failing.  And when one is President of the United States of America and fails to implement what is – when all is said and done – an internal American decision, how can that President gain enough respect, how can he gather sufficient clout to implement foreign policy?  To carry with him, by dangling hopes and fears, other leaders – with smaller economic resources, but perhaps larger egos and stronger determination?

On the international scene, where America is either a leader or a scapegoat, Barack Obama just didn’t.

He was ideologically favourable to the Arab Spring and wanted to help – but didn’t; he wanted to save the Libyans – but didn’t: that failed state is no longer a country; nor is Syria – another place where Obama didn’t; Egypt’s anti-Islamist regime now draws succour from the Saudi theocracy, not from the US democracy, whose President just didn’t.

For the first time in a long while, Russia felt its heavy fists free to punch – not just in Ukraine, but in the Middle East.  Secure in the knowledge that the President That Didn’t – wouldn’t.

In 2012, the Obama Administration announced – with quite a bit of fanfare – a dramatic change of foreign policy focus, a ‘strategic pivot to Asia’.  Can someone tell me – without hours of intricate research and scalp scratching – what are the top three moves United States did as part of that new strategy?

That new US strategy was supposed – as everybody understood – to reassert and defend America’s interests in the face of China, with its newly found economic might, political weight and augmented military capability.  I won’t even discuss whether the ‘pivot’ was a sensible decision.  Wisely or not, the US Administration had decided to ‘pivot’.  Only… it didn’t.  Last time I looked, China was still building up its military and civilian presence in disputed South China territories.  Beijing has brushed aside with contempt a UN tribunal’s ruling, which rejected the Chinese territorial claims.  The United States did… exactly nothing.  ‘Pivot’ – my foot!

Not only ‘the enemies’ were contemptuous, however.  Even America’s closest allies were left unimpressed.  In October 2013 (i.e., in the midst of the American ‘pivot’), then British Chancellor George Osborne made a widely publicised visit to China, in search of tighter trade links.  Oblivious of the ‘special relationship’ between the United Kingdom and the (‘pivoting’) United States, Mr. Osborne declared (in a public speech and without even blushing) that the UK and China had "much in common".  That overture was followed less than a year later by the visit to the UK of China’s Prime Minister.  China’s President was given a red carpet reception when he visited the UK in 2015 – and a very thick carpet it was, too!

Israel is another ‘special relationship’ ally.  Soon after being sworn in for his first presidential term, Obama publicly pointed at Israel’s West Bank settlements as the main obstacle to the ‘two state solution’.  Eight years and about 200,000 ‘settlers’ later, Secretary of State Kerry tells us that... they still are.  Little has changed – if one ignores the difference between Obama’s cold, measured delivery and Kerry’s strident ‘gewalt!’

Now, there is much to be said – and much has already been said – on whether ‘the settlements’ are indeed the problem, or whether ‘two states’ is really the solution.  But that’s not the point.  The point is: if Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, believes that they are and that it is; if, moreover, the issue is so hugely important to him as to qualify for the very last gesture of his presidency, then how come he didn’t manage to do a thing about it?  In eight years of being the uncontested leader of the most powerful nation on earth?  Sure, sure, there are mitigating factors: Netanyahu is obstinate… or perhaps the Palestinians are vengeful and intractable…  Whatever: ‘The buck stops here!’  The bottom line is: the President didn’t.

I’ve no idea if Trump will be a better, or a worse President.  Who knows?  I claim no clairvoyance towards the future.  But I can analyse the past and one thing is clear: 2017 finds America with colder friends and bolder enemies than it had in 2009.  As for Barack Obama, he is about to enter history as The President That Didn’t.

How much, Mr. Osborne?

Imagine that tomorrow morning Israel amasses troops on the outskirts of Ramallah.  A plane carrying the Palestinian leadership regrettably crashes en-route to negotiations in Israel.  To avoid another unfortunate accident, a few Palestinian leaders ‘agree’ to ‘merge Palestine into Israel’.  The next day, Israel’s Parliament (the Knesset) declares the West Bank as the 'Palestinian Autonomous Region', an indivisible part of the State of Israel.  A regional government is appointed, made up of Jewish Israelis and ‘friendly Muslims’.  Civil servants are sacked if they ‘look Muslim’ (i.e., wear beards if they are men or veils if they are women, if they fast during Ramadan, etc.)  Hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis are settled in the Region, lured by better-paid government jobs, while the Region’s Muslim inhabitants are ‘encouraged’ to move elsewhere to ‘better assimilate’ into the Israeli society.  Any dissent is swiftly and brutally dealt with, the leaders being either executed or carefully ‘re-educated’ over a few decades in prison.

If you think that such scenario would cause a global uproar the like of which has never been heard before – you are certainly right.  But hey – don’t worry!  Just give it a bit of time, they’ll all get used to it.  Look forward to a visit from UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable Whateverthenamewillbe, who will smile kindly and offer his country’s considerable expertise and entrepreneurial spirit to help develop the Palestinian Autonomous Region to its full potential.

What – you think that’s extremely unlikely?  Well, you may be right again.  But it has just happened elsewhere.

Situated to the north of Tibet, the territory of Xīnjiāng has been, for many centuries, inhabited by a Muslim population speaking Uyghur – a Turkic language.  Like many other territories, Xīnjiāng (pronounced Shinjang in Uyghur) has had a turbulent history – alternating between Mongolian, Chinese and Tibetan rule; occasionally, the Uyghurs managed to govern their own affairs – at some point even establishing an Uyghur Khaganate.  The latest such attempts occurred twice in the 20th century, when Uyghurs declared the territory’s independence under the name of East Turkestan Republic.  In August 1949, with the Chinese Communist Army approaching, five Uyghur leaders boarded a Soviet plane, to attend a conference in Beijing; they all perished in a mysterious accident.  It was thus left to three other leaders – who wisely chose to travel by train! – to agree to join the People’s Republic of China.  Communist China incorporated Shinjang as the Xīnjiāng Uyghur Autonomous Region.  Several Uyghur armed groups continued to resist the Chinese takeover, but were eventually defeated, their leaders either fleeing or being caught and executed.

Enticed with plush jobs, millions of Han Chinese have settled in the ‘Autonomous Region’ – causing the ratio of Uyghurs in the Region's population to plummet from 73% in 1955 to circa 45% in 2000.

Just like every other Chinese citizen, Uyghurs are required to learn Mandarin and use it in dealing with the authorities.  Overt displays of Uyghur nationalism – however peaceful – are harshly suppressed as ‘separatism’.  Muslim religious practice is ‘subtly’ and not so subtly discouraged.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been killed in the frequent bouts of violence that erupt in the Region, with Uyghur rebels clashing with Han settlers, as well as with the Chinese police and army.  Nobody really knows how many have been imprisoned and executed.

In May 2014, the otherwise ‘progressive’ New York Times reported that China’s leader, Xi Jinping,

has called for tighter state control over religion and for better assimilating Uighurs into Chinese society, including moving more Uighurs from Xinjiang to other parts of China, where they can live among the Han, the nation’s dominant ethnic group.

The paper further reported that Mr. Xi also announced that China will use “special measures” in Xinjiang to “deal with special things”.  No specifics were given.

Even Amnesty International – which usually treads as if on eggshells when it comes to criticising dictatorships – reported:

On 28 July [2014], state media reported that 37 civilians were killed when a ‘knife-wielding mob’ stormed government offices in Yarkand County (in Chinese: Shache) and that security forces had shot dead 59 attackers. Uighur groups disputed this account, putting the death toll much higher and saying rather that police opened fire on hundreds of people who were protesting against the severe restrictions placed on Muslims during Ramadan. Uighurs faced widespread discrimination in employment, education, housing and curtailed religious freedom, as well as political marginalization.

But all that did not stop the Right Honourable George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, from visiting China at the head of a large delegation, eager to increase the economic cooperation between the two countries.  Mr. Osborne has even visited Xinjiang – presumably to see how British firms can benefit from China’s investments in the Region’s infrastructure – an infrastructure that (so Uyghurs claim) is designed to serve the Han settlers.

By the way, words like ‘settlement’ or ‘settlers’ were never pronounced in the many speeches and interviews given by the Right Honourable on this occasion.  Nor are they to be found in any official UK declaration in the context of China.  There is clearly a big difference (though also a very subtle one, ‘coz I can’t see it!) between Han Chinese settling in Xinjiang and Jewish Israelis settling in the West Bank.  Because when it comes to the latter, Her Majesty’s Government does not mince words:

Our position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law…

Needless to say, none of the disciplined and ‘progressive’ mainstream journalists who interviewed Mr. Osborne was rude enough to ask why that exalted International Law applies to one case, but not the other.  Nor did Her Majesty’s Opposition – rendered even more ‘progressive’ by its new leader Jeremy Corbyn – raise any major moral objections to the idea of a closer relationship with the Chinese Occupation (‘occupation’ – either with or without the capital ‘O’) was yet another word blatantly absent from the whole UK-China conversation).

In case you wondered, let me reassure you that there are no plans to distinctly label Chinese products made by Han settlers in Xinjiang or Tibet – even though the UK Foreign Office wants to ‘expedite’ the implementation of such labelling for products made in Israeli settlements.

Nevertheless, some people and organisations did criticise Mr. Osborne’s visit and his eagerness to collaborate with China, pointing out that the Communist regime in Beijing is one of the world’s worst human rights violators.  But even that criticism was calm, measured and polite; there were no calls to ‘Boycott, Divest and Sanction’ China – that particular punishment appears to be reserved exclusively for use against the Jewish State.

Mr. Osborne has shrugged off even that light and mannered criticism, explaining that

I have raised the human rights concerns that we have with the Chinese authorities as part of the broader conversation.

The conversation must have been very broad indeed – or perhaps it was conducted in Chinese whispers.  Because the Chinese hosts don’t remember that part at all.  In fact, the Chancellor has been praised by Chinese government-controlled media for… not raising the human rights issue.  One Chinese paper called him

the first Western official in recent years who focused on business potential rather than raising a magnifying glass to the 'human rights issue’

The paper further opined that Mr. Osborne’s behaviour should be emulated:

It should be diplomatic etiquette for foreign leaders not to confront China by raising the human rights issue.  Keeping a modest manner is the correct attitude for a foreign minister visiting China to seek business opportunities.

Mr. Osborne may not be “foreign minister”, but he appears to understand why he is required to keep “a modest manner”:

Of course we're two completely different political systems and we raise human rights issues, but I don't think that is inconsistent with also wanting to do more business with one-fifth of the world's population.

And therein is – obvious for all but the wilfully blind to see – the double standard: China is a huge country – as well as an economic, political and military power.  Israel is almost exactly the size of Wales and its economy is on a par with those of Singapore and Hong Kong.  Her Majesty’s Government does not wish to upset China; it does not care if it upsets Israel – in fact that might earn it a few brownie points with Arab dictators who rule over half a billion people and command the majority of the world’s oil and gas reserves.

All of which does not make it moral.  In fact, it reminds me that, a few years ago, I was walking with a Jewish friend through the streets of Amsterdam.  All of a sudden, my friend – a happily married, moral-to-the-point-of-obsession man – knocked on a window and asked the woman inside ‘How much?’  ‘Eighty euros’ answered the prostitute, ‘do you want to come in?’  ‘No’, answered my friend, ‘I just wanted to know’.

And so, since the UK Government’s benevolent interpretation of International Law appears to be for sale – just like the body in the Amsterdam window – may I respectfully ask Mr. Osborn how much it is?  I just want to know…