http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d286548-0ce2-11de-a555-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Obama's Aretha Franklin doctrine By Gideon Rachman Published: March 9 2009 19:49 | Last updated: March 9 2009 19:49 She appeared at Barack Obama's inauguration in a magnificent hat. She even sang a song. But who would have guessed that Aretha Franklin would be such an acute guide to the new US president's foreign policy? In one famous song, however, the Queen of Soul literally spells out an idea central to Mr Obama's approach to the world: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T." In his first proper television interview as president, Mr Obama told Al Arabiya news channel that, in approaching the Middle East, "the language we use has to be a language of respect". He added: "The Iranian people are a great people and Persian civilisation is a great civilisation." Later, when Mr Obama announced his plan for a US withdrawal from Iraq, he stressed that Iraq was a "great nation, rooted in the cradle of civilisation". Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state, has been reading from the same script. In China, she repeatedly emphasised her respect for the Chinese people. And, by holding her first meeting with Sergei Lavrov, her Russian counterpart, in Geneva, Mrs Clinton chose a location designed to give the Russians face. Geneva was a frequent location for superpower negotiations during the cold war. Treating foreigners with respect might sound like a mixture of common sense and courtesy. But, in fact, it is something of a departure from the practice of the past eight years. Some senior people in the Bush administration were proud of treating foreigners with disdain. The memoirs of John Bolton, Mr Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, are full of contemptuous references to the "EUroids" - otherwise known as America's European allies. William Kristol, an influential neo-conservative editor, captured this swaggering mood in 2003, when he dismissed protests from overseas about the invasion of Iraq, writing: "It really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain." The Emperor Caligula put it more succinctly: "Let them hate us, so long as they fear us." The Obama team approaches things differently. It reckons that humiliated nations are often dangerous nations. The current Russian leadership burns with humiliation at the collapse of the Soviet Union. An urge to show that Russia could not be pushed around helped drive the Kremlin's decision to invade Georgia last August. The Russians are still acutely sensitive to any suggestion that Americans are looking down on them. When Michael Dell, the computer entrepreneur, recently asked Vladimir Putin how outsiders could help Russia, the Russian prime minister responded: "We don't need any help. We are not cripples." An urge to right historical humiliations also underpins Chinese foreign policy. Officials and text books often cite China's "century of humiliation" at the hands of foreign powers, beginning with the opium wars of the mid-19th century. In 2001, the National People's Congress even passed a law proclaiming an official "National Humiliation Day". But as Orville Schell, a US writer, notes: "So many historical dates were proposed that delegates could not agree on any one, and thus, no day was designated, although one of the leading candidates is now September 18, the day that Japan began its invasion of Manchuria." Turn to the Middle East and once again it is clear that there could be a "respect dividend". Islamist fundamentalists often appeal to a deep sense of cultural humiliation and resentment in the Muslim world. These are proud, ancient cultures - humbled by their own failings and highly sensitive to any suggestion that they are being pushed around by the Johnny-come-lately Americans. The Obama administration's emphasis on respect risks sounding formulaic. But as a former community organiser in Chicago, Mr Obama will be well acquainted with the idea that difficult and dangerous people often respond to "respect". If a sense of humiliation lies at the core of an entire nation's foreign policy, then it is good sense to avoid stoking up those feelings. But while respect is a good starting point for a relationship, it is rarely a complete answer. The Iranian government might genuinely appreciate an effort to understand and respect Persian culture and Iran's place in the world. But that might still not persuade it to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Indeed, Iran's nuclear programme has become - in part - the focus of a battle over respect for Iran's sovereign rights. Even American liberals struggle to respect all foreign cultures - particularly when they trash liberal values. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan pose this problem in a particularly acute form. On the one hand, it is clear that Pashtun nationalism is driven by a deep sense of pride and a determination not to bow to foreigners. In that sense, the "AfPak" problem - as it is now known - looks like a perfect case for the application of the Aretha Franklin doctrine. On the other hand, is the Obama administration really prepared to "respect" a movement that insists on the most brutal version of sharia law and refuses to educate women? In the long run, as Mr Obama hinted in an interview last week, the Americans may end up negotiating with the Taliban. But the Obama administration's first response to Afghanistan seems to be to send more troops rather than to call for more respect. Will it work? Once again, the new president may need to turn to Aretha Franklin for inspiration. Only this time, the appropriate song would be: "I Say a Little Prayer". [email protected] More columns at www.ft.com/gideonrachman [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
