Jon Stewart: "Do you feel like you're stuck in a narrative now...?"
-an apt question asked of Barack Obama this past Wednesday on a Daily Show interview. We haven't wholly escaped the narrative that had been constructed earlier in the race and attained prominence at the YouTube debate, where we were precipitously informed that Obama is naive and inexperienced. The narrative implies the inexperienced Sen. Obama has outlandish ideas concerning diplomacy and foreign relations, and if anything is to blame for the foreign policy debacle of the past several years, it certainly wasn’t "inlandish" ideas... [/irony] Here and elsewhere analysts poked holes in the narrative even as it attempted to seize upon remarks concerning Pakistan, Afghanistan and Cuba.
Due credit in denarrative must be attributed to Stephen Sixta for an excellent YouTube question (h/t turneresq), to Geekesque for informing us of what Obama actually said about fighting terrorism, to the Samantha Power memo (h/t viralvoice) for explaining how he was right. These narratives are trickier than chinese finger traps, feminine wiles, or quicksand - requiring the greatest diligence, common sense, resolve and above all, buoyancy for competent defense.
However, as entertaining as it may be to reject the narrative, we find ourselves by and large where we began: digital freedom, non-distraction and not sinking. This particular frame of foreign policy statements leaves us somewhat defensive, diminishing the impact of the policy that had been misconstrued or maligned, and it leaves little room for deeper discussion of the issue at stake. We recently missed an excellent opportunity for the American people to learn something of Pakistan history and domestic politics, the country's ongoing conflict with its far-flung border regions and the impact of Waziristan and the Tribal regions on Afghanistan. Instead, we were given a narrative by Christopher Dodd:
My view was, when you raise -- issues are being raised about Pakistan, understand that while General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country. And so, while I’d like to see him changed, the reality is if we lose him, then what we face as an alternative could be a lot worse for our country.
democracynow.org
We were given a narrative that reduces or misinforms our understanding of the issue at stake, and constructs a spectre of terrorism that exceeds reality and strengthens the power of those very terrorist groups we oppose, a narrative primarily constructed to suggest that Barack Obama is reckless and ignorant concerning foreign policy. In writing this diary I hope to expand the discussion, and present some less well-known evidence that he is not.
Proliferation - It's time I return to the diary backbone: proliferation of what, exactly, besides destructive narrative? Obama has been putting his committee assignments to good use with respect to experience in foreign affairs and international policy since he came into the senate, pushing some legislation of considerable interest for this discussion.
Arms
Obama has been sitting on the Senate Foreign relations committee, and worked with Richard Lugar to update the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This is not likely to be fresh news to anyone who has actually been following Obama's record in any detail. The Senator mentioned it in his remarks at the Wilson center that caused such a stir over a single remark, concerning al Qaeda hideaways on the Pakistan frontier...
As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.
We must also do more to safeguard the world’s most dangerous weapons. We know al Qaeda seeks a nuclear weapon. We know they would not hesitate to use one. Yet there is still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium, some of it poorly secured, at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. There are still about 15,000 to 16,00 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium scattered across 11 time zones in the former Soviet Union.
That is why I worked in the Senate with Dick Lugar to pass a law that would help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction.
And that is why, as President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles, we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.
Obama HQ
Anyone who bothered to read the speech noted the degree to which it dealt with building international infrastructure to combat terrorism, and how this was a central feature of his comments on Pakistan as well:
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrassas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
Peculiar that a speech that had so much to offer regarding what must be done before the last resort received attention only regarding an action that may never, and SHOULD never, take place.
It's not just bluster. Lugar and Obama brought the legislation to the Senate floor in both 2005 and 2006 (S. 2566 in the 109th congress), managed to include it in the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 (H.R. 6060) which passed in December. Earlier in August this year he introduced a bill (with Chuck Hagel cosponsoring) that builds upon this type of initiative, targeted at nuclear weapons proliferation (S.1977):
today, along with Senator Hagel, I am introducing the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which provides for sustained U.S. leadership in a global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.
Securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at their source is the most direct and reliable way to prevent nuclear terrorism. Thanks to the leadership of Senators NUNN and LUGAR in creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of Defense, there is no question that we have made significant progress in securing nuclear stockpiles. But there are still significant quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material that remain vulnerable to theft. In the civilian sector alone, there are an estimated 60 tons of highly enriched uranium, enough to make over 1,000 nuclear bombs, spread out at facilities in over 40 countries around the world. Many of these facilities do not have adequate physical security, leaving the material vulnerable to theft.
The insecure storage of nuclear stockpiles has already led to an alarming number of attempted exchanges of small quantities of dangerous nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, confirmed 16 incidents between 1993 and 2005 that involved trafficking in relatively small amounts of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. That is 16 incidents too many, in my opinion, and 16 incidents that should not have been allowed to happen.
Floor speech from GovTrack
Obama has dealt with the concrete matter of drafting and pushing through legislation that addresses the key role of other nations in preventing the most catastrophic of terrorist attacks. He has, with Lugar, toured such countries firsthand to investigate what must be done concerning weapons proliferation. One might point out that this is neither the full extent of his travels abroad as a U.S. senator, but then one must concede that this is a short record that addresses only a portion of international policy, of either the war or peacetime varieties. However, this record demonstrates awareness and understanding of these vital issues that has been narratively dismissed out of hand.
It is not enough for other candidates to suggest that Obama has not lost his training wheels... we are owed a serious discussion of the merits of his proposals. We are owed a serious discussion of what must be done about the leadership of al Qaeda, wherever we find it... and if someone tells us that Obama is naive and ignorable, they're lying.
Bugs
There's another proliferatee I'd like to touch on briefly, beginning with an excerpt of comments made by Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in late April...
In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. When narco-trafficking and corruption threaten democracy in Latin America, it’s America’s problem too. When poor villagers in Indonesia have no choice but to send chickens to market infected with avian flu, it cannot be seen as a distant concern. When religious schools in Pakistan teach hatred to young children, our children are threatened as well.
Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.
Emphasis added. We've essentially addressed half of this comment and climate change will have to wait for another day, but the notion of pandemic disease as a vital component of foreign policy has not really entered the consciousness of this campaign. There have been some worthwhile acknowledgements in and out of debates on AIDS, but such is not the battle being fought over primary candidate supremacy - who has the time when we might talk about hair?
Obama is credited by many in the senate with raising legislative awareness and presenting legislation addressing avian flu. The following is taken from remarks made on the floor in September of 2005...
I, along with Senators Lugar, Durbin and others, introduced legislation, S. 969, to enhance our ability to deal with this potential crisis. But that was months ago, and we need to broaden the number of people involved in this effort. Moreover, these is are modest first steps. Going forward, we are going to need significantly more resources. I am eager to work with leaders on health issues, including Senator Harkin and Senator Reid, as well as others across the aisle. I hope we can work not only to make sure we have an effective international regime to deal with this problem overseas but that we also invest the time, the energy, and the resources needed to put in place effective measures well before we have a full blown crisis on our hands. An outbreak of the avian flu could occur in a year, 5 years, 10 years, or if we were incredibly lucky not happen at all. But the one good thing about investing in measures to deal with this looming crisis is--and I will end on this point--if we spend the money now, it will pay dividends, even if this particular strain of the avian flu outbreak does not occur. Why is this the case? The risk of some sort of pandemic, and the mutations of flus for which we have no immunity, is almost inevitable. The H5N1 strain may not be the strain that leads to a full blown pandemic. But, another strain could easily come along a cause serious damage in the future. Presently, we simply do not have the public health infrastructure to deal adequately with this contingency.
THOMAS
...emphasis added once more. The comment that infrastructure exists both in the eventuality of the specific threat and the unknown one is perhaps the strongest argument for taking action immediately regarding pandemic disease, and detection MUST be feasible abroad, as well at home, in order to be effective. If there's a lesson to be taken concerning the ridiculousness of Andrew Speaker and his drug-resistant TB odyssey, it's the permeability of borders and the ubiquity of human disease transmission. Similar to the above, this is a real issue of foreign policy, and it deserves attention -- not dismissal -- from the sanctimonious elite.
Obama has also been quite active in promoting the cause of fighting HIV/AIDS, but I will leave that subject to another time, and to a hat tip to Tara Smith over at Aetiology who does such an excellent job informing us on these subjects:
And Barack doesn't stop at merely criticizing the government's response--he actively works to combat stigma regarding AIDS:
"That would be very good," Tutu said after holding talks with Obama. "It encourages other people who may be less brave to want to do that. It also helps to deal with the question of the stigma."
Always good news to hear American politicians emphasize the importance of evidence-based science, especially in light of how much US AIDS funding goes toward abstinence-only approaches to HIV prevention. Obama certainly can't make policy changes all on his own (and as he says, he's no Angelina Jolie), but it's certainly a step on the right direction.
HIV conference messages still reverberating
Can we escape the narrative? We here are also guilty of indulging a wisdom, conventional or otherwise, that presents an expedient -- rather than informed -- picture of presidential candidates. Through no fault of our own, even when we have fought back against the narrative, we have emerged the weaker for having spent our time mauling strawmen of others' making. If the media cannot be persuaded to talk about substantive policy differences in the primary run, it is indeed our responsibility to demand it of both our journalism and our leaders when the opportunity arrives.
In the meantime... not only was the "naive and irresponsible" narrative regarding Obama inaccurate in each instance -- whether it be dictators, terrorists or nuclear weapons -- the narrative was in the beginning quite astonishingly stupid. I do not wish to decide my candidate on the basis of a facile caricature, and I've lost a great deal of respect for those competing candidates who suggested I should.
Some hat tips to recent diaries discussing similar issues...
From bridgecoach, posted in the wee hours while I was still working on this, calling for many things to which I am sympathetic (e.g. a reasonable discussion of Obama's senate record).
icebergslim's diary of Zbigniew Brzezinski's favorable comments towards Obama and discussions therein.
Geekesque's diary on Obama's unfortunately unique (among democratic presidential candidates) support for a bill against cluster munitions.
viralvoice with a comprehensive look at the foreign policy "gaffes."