Stop going ga ga after him

There is nothing historical about Obama except his complexion

The world seemed to have gone overboard over Barack Obama. But is the man really worth celebrating? Does he have the much-needed progressive values and political courage to extricate the world’s superpower from the current mess?

So far, he hasn’t shown any signs which suggested a tectonic shift in US foreign policy. On the other hand what he has been churning out are platitudes and rhetorics. He was simply playing to the gallery, without making any radical statements that would alter the status quo and lead to a major shift in the US policy abroad.

He has never condemned the US invasion of Iraq. In fact during the campaign he didn’t term the war immoral and illegal or a crime against humanity that qualifies it to be tried in an international court of justice.

If he really wished for a ‘change’, a key word during his election campaign, he would have been condemning the US misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His close association with the likes of Colin Powell, Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano and former NATO commander General James Jones, all warmongers during the Bush era, speaks about the kind of orientation he would take as a President. James Jones had backed John McCain as his national security adviser.

And when Israel’s war machine went on killing a few hundred infants and other hapless people in Gaza he kept mum.

Anyone with a basic understanding of American politics will tell you that as a shrewd politician with his eyes set on the White House, Obama has to support the gory acts of Israel and refrain from making any other “politically incorrect” statements that would poke any hole in the jingoistic status quo.

This jingoism means that it is always the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas who are to blame for all hostilities and their consequences with Israel. And the real victims, the Palestine people whose expulsion from their homeland over the 60 years remains as one of the greatest injustices in modern history, are the troublemakers.

This jingoism further means that it is in the best interest of America’s security and safety that the country went on ‘war’ against Afghanistan and Iraq.

As a shrewd candidate Obama has to respond to this jingoism.

Obama marketed himself as a purveyor of change. And there was his black colour to boot. And by change, does he mean a change in the complexion of the president?

And it is really funny to watch the world and the media going ga ga after his black complexion. There have been Black people like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rize who sat over so many cruelties perpetrated by the Uncle Sam.

So having a black at the helm doesn’t mean a change just because he or she represents the clan long oppressed by the whites.

The point is there is nothing ‘historic’ in Obama’s presidency. He simply is just another candidate who played his cards well.

As rightly pointed out by Noam Chomsky, the election of an indigenous person (Evo Morales) in Bolivia and a progressive person (Jean-Bertrand Aristide) in Haiti were more historic than the election of Obama.

And keep in mind that as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he threatened missile strikes against Iran. And he's been threatening Iran ever since. So what differentiates him from other hawkish elements during the Bush era?

US journalist William Blum tells us that Obama is likely to remain a centrist; he’ll probably continue to play it safe.

At this moment I am reminded of Ralph Nadar, who has been campaigning for presidency. He puts forward an alternative to everything the successive US governments have been doing over the years: exporting uncertainties, wars and conflicts world over in its unending thirst for oil. If he wins the US presidency, it surely is historic. Not Obama’s.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons