There are a lot of people who assume that Sen. Obama, because of his heritage, will have an advantage in dealing with other countries. Part of that, as John Kerry noted, is that if he wins in November, “it would have a powerful message all across the world about the American story. About our making real the words that we live by. That all men are created equal.” Part too, I think, is the idea that because he doesn’t “look like the guys on the money,” non-European leaders around the world will find him more appealing and accessible.Kerry’s certainly right about the symbolic value of an Obama victory—for Americans. What’s somewhat questionable is the underlying assumption here that anti-black racism is only an American problem. That’s simply not the case: anti-black racism is in fact a significant problem in many of the countries who pose us the biggest challenges, including China and much of the Muslim world, in which slavery of black Africans was never forbidden and continues to be practiced. As such, in dealing with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, or with the Israel-Palestine conflict, Sen. Obama could actually find his African heritage a disadvantage. That said, it should also be noted that his heritage should be an asset for him in dealing with sub-Saharan Africa, where the US is already generally popular thanks to Bush Administration policies and which should assume increasing significance for American policy going forward.There’s another issue as well for Sen. Obama in dealing with the Muslim world, this one potentially more serious: whether he considers himself that he was ever a Muslim, on Muslim terms, he was, and he clearly isn’t now (regardless of what some people might like to tell you, he’s definitely a practicing Christian), which makes him an apostate, a murtad. As longtime student of the Muslim world Daniel Pipes points out, that’s no small issue. Technically, this would make him subject to religious-based assassination, though it seems probable that prudence would prevail over any such impulse; but as the Christian Science Monitor realized, for the US to elect an apostate Muslim to the White House would be a huge propaganda windfall for al’Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. That, obviously, would create major foreign-policy challenges for an Obama administration.Do these things disqualify Sen. Obama to be President? No, certainly not, nor do they mean he couldn’t have a successful administration—I’m doubtful such would happen, yes, but that’s for other reasons. They do mean, however, that the facile idea that electing Sen. Obama will be a boon for American foreign policy is in fact quite dubious.
What do you mean Obama is a Muslim on “Muslim terms”? Are you suggesting that 1.3 billion people across every continent of the world and with over 6 major denominations all have the same view on what makes a person Muslim?
Or are you suggesting all Muslims believe faith is inherited as it is in Judaism?
Instead of relying on Daniel Pipes, why not do some reading of your own on this issue.
No, but I’m saying that on the terms of the Qur’an as it is generally interpreted, Barack Obama was–not is, was–a Muslim. I can say that the same way that I can say that on Christian terms, he is now a Christian, even though 2+ billion people across every continent of the world with three major denominational divisions and hundreds of smaller ones don’t all have the same view on what makes a person Christian.
I think that religion could be a problem – I’m not sure that race will be, even in foreign policy. I haven’t heard of situations where Condie wasn’t listened to, and she’s the double-whammy of female *and* black.
In fact, I think the racism that exists in other countries is an argument in favor of an Obama presidency. Things like racism exist to be shattered, not to be catered to by only sending white males abroad to racist nations. Just like I think its important to have very public female and minority CEOs, for example, I think its important to export what might be America’s primary strength, historically as well as now – our incredible diversity.
On the issue of Obama’s religion – I don’t expect it to be much of a problem in dealing with legitimate governments and the majority of the Muslim world.
Iran, for example, has a fundamentalist government because we helped put it there, just like we did in so many other places like Iraq or Afghanistan. But from what I’ve read, the populace of Iran isn’t exactly on the “death to America” side. Its just the problem of the US inheriting the foreseeable effects of our own meddling foreign policy in the 80’s – we help create right-wing dictatorships, and now we have to deal with them. And it might be a problem for Obama to do so, but I don’t think it’ll be that significant.
With any luck at all, I’ll get to find out which of us is right 🙂
Actually, I have; her race and gender has been an issue for her at points, though State has been careful to keep that from getting around much. And as I say, I don’t think this is an argument against electing Barack Obama; I think we coddle our enemies’ (and allies’!) prejudices too much as it is. I’m simply noting that there’s this easy assumption out there that Obama being black will help him abroad, when in fact it’s not that simple. In some ways, I’m sure it will help; in others, I’m also quite sure it won’t. In the long run, what will matter is not the skin but the man wearing it (whether it’s Obama’s black or McCain’s thin).
Also, as regard’s Obama’s status (in many eyes) as an apostate Muslim, I agree that with legitimate governments, it’s not likely to be an issue, because even the nutcases who run Iran are prudent enough not to make it so. Where it is likely to make a difference, however, is among the general populace of many Muslim countries, where extremists should be able to turn that to a considerable propaganda benefit.
Oddly enough, Iran might be one place where that’s less of an issue; from the things I’ve heard from a number of folks, it sounds like popular disaffection with the Islamic Revolution, and indeed with Islam itself, is deep and widespread among those under 40 (basically, those who’ve grown up under that government).