The Blog

Words Have Consequences

What Obama's Cairo speech has wrought.

12:00 AM, Jun 16, 2009 • By SETH CROPSEY
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

Muammar Qaddafi, who had become gratifyingly less belligerent since the Reagan administration's 1986 airstrikes, subsequent economic sanctions, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, came out of his box during a visit to Italy on June 11. "What's the difference," he asked in an address to Italian legislators, "between the U.S. airstrikes on our homes and bin Laden's actions?"

The difference is that the U.S. airstrikes of the 1980s were aimed primarily at military and government targets after Libyan planes fired missiles at U.S. carrier-based aircraft in international waters. The U.S. strike was also intended to punish Libya's complicity in the bombing of a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by off-duty American military personnel. Bin-Laden's attack on the World Trade Center was aimed at, and succeeded in, killing thousands of innocents as a means of expressing general hatred for the West and the U.S. in particular.

Qaddafi's equation of U.S. military responses to provocations of his own making--which followed Washington's extensive public and private warnings about American insistence on maintaining freedom of navigation in international waters--with bin Laden's surprise attack against civilians was offered up less than a week after President Obama's Cairo speech.

In this speech Obama called the 9/11 attacks "an enormous trauma to our country . . . that led us to act contrary to our ideals." Specifically, Guantanamo. The president reduced the evil of destroying several thousand innocents to a psychological episode that produced aberrant American behavior. Other parts of the same speech are equally unbalanced. "Israel must live up to its obligations" to allow Palestinians to lead decent lives. However, no such "obligation" exists for Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist.

No one should be surprised that Qaddafi's remarks followed Obama's so quickly. If the American president sees his international role as a great exhorter with a lot of explaining to do, why shouldn't the leaders of other countries, especially those who share serious misgivings about the role of the United States in the world join the chorus? If the "fight against negative stereotypes," as Obama put it, is what really stiffens the sinews and summons up the blood of the U.S. president, call in the speechwriters, act the role of the victim convincingly, and consider the attractive possibility that words may matter more than deeds in dealing with the United States--at least for a while.

For now this may be a largely moot issue in our relations with Libya. Oil prices haven't increased enough for Qaddafi to become a real troublemaker again, notwithstanding Obama's apologia and self-description as an arbiter between two value systems that may be regrettably locked in a stereotypically-induced misunderstanding.

But in other places around the world the transformation of U.S. foreign policy into moralistic exhortations anchored in efforts to judge national interest from a stereotype-free, neutral vantage point could have more immediate and serious consequences: the Korean Peninsula, for example.

On June 4, the day before Obama's speech in Cairo, Seoul reported that a North Korean patrol boat had violated its territorial waters off South Korea's western sea border. The same area was the site of naval clashes between the two states in 1999 and 2002, on the opposite side of the Korean Peninsula from where North Korea captured the intelligence ship, USS Pueblo in 1968.

Pueblo's mission was to monitor Soviet ships transiting the Tsushima Straits and collect signal and electronic intelligence from North Korea. She had departed Sasebo, Japan the second week of 1968 and was spotted and eventually forced by a North Korean sub chaser and three torpedo boats and aircraft into North Korean waters on 23 January 1968. Fired on and boarded, one U.S. sailor was killed in the action that preceded Pueblo's capture and detention in Wonsan. Her crew was taken to POW camps, starved and tortured before being released 11 months later. The incident sparked a feckless debate within the United States over how to respond. The ship today remains on the U.S. Navy's list of active-duty commissioned ships and sits in the harbor of Pyongyang, a reminder of a little power's ability to tweak a big one.