If Obama Doesn’t Understand European History He Can’t Get America’s Future History Right

By Barry Rubin

President Barack Obama’s mistaken reference to Nazi German death camps as “Polish death camps” is being ridiculed by critics as an example of incompetence. That misses the point.  The defense is that it was on his teleprompter. That misses the point, too.

After all, you don’t need to be a historical genius to have caught that error even if it was on the teleprompter. I am not suggesting that Obama doesn't know that the Nazi Germans operated the death camps. Nevertheless, what this is really about is that Obama does not see himself as emerging from European history and, truth be told and despite his university degrees, doesn't know much about it. 

On one level, that is rather obvious. His father was Kenyan. But, of course, his mother was an American of European descent. Still,  Obama has not chosen to focus on his simultaneously half-African/half-European parentage. He has identified himself as an African-American, and the word African here has to be taken literally, not just as a matter of ancestry from three centuries ago.  The only exception to this stance, I believe, was a reference to Irish ancestry during a visit to that country and a feeble, rather insultingly stereotyped, attempt at an Irish accent.

Forget about this as a matter of race or skin color. Think of it as a matter of geographical choice. Obama draws heavily from Third World standpoints, something quite evident in his choice of church, for example. I cannot recall his ever quoting a European political philosopher. He has never to my knowledge made any reference publicly to Communism. In his books, the emphasis is on feelings, personal experiences, and ideas that come out of his head.  

Obama has claimed that his grandfather was punished as an anti-British activist during the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya. The prime minister at the time was Winston Churchill, and it is no coincidence that one of Obama’s first acts was to return a Churchill bust to Britain in a rude manner.

It’s fine to have a president who didn’t come from that background physically but not so good to have a president who doesn’t grasp the meaning of modern European history.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,285 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

------------------------

And how is that narrative important? Here are some examples:

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

The Case of the Moderate Muslim, Iconoclastic Journalist and Muscular Law Professor

By Barry Rubin

We are at a point in history where free speech advocates call for muzzling journalists, law professors assault those who ask too many questions, and European society is daily turned upside down. Consider this tale from staid Holland.

Naema Tahir is a Dutch author of Pakistani origin and a moderate Muslim. Interviewed on a popular Dutch talk show, she spoke of her great respect for democracy, morality, and citizens’ rights. In particular, she praised Job Cohen for his honorable behavior in politics. Cohen was until a few days ago the leader of the opposition and head of the Labor Party. He has just resigned, reportedly because he opposes the campaign by some members to shift the party to the far left.

But, she continued, there is one reporter she doesn’t like because he is right-wing, controversial, and makes fun of thing that Tahir likes. And so he should be banned.

This man’s name is Rutger Castricum and he apparently is both a fearless journalist who skewers the pretentious and a showman. So he went to Tahir’s house to ask her why she wanted to end freedom of speech and of the press for him. He took along a camera crew, knocked on the door, and politely asked to speak to Tahir.

Her boyfriend or husband--the sources differ--is Andreas Kinneging, a law professor at Leiden University and an expert on ethics. The fact that Tahir has a boyfriend or husband who is a non-Muslim would mark her for death in many Muslim communities in Europe.

But obviously Kinneging can take care of business. Oh, yes, the law professor is also a former national weightlifting champion.

In his speech on obtaining his doctorate, Kinneging spoke of the need for open debate since nobody has a monopoly on the truth. He did not apply those beliefs in dealing with Castricum.

What follows, and is caught on the video tape, is a confrontation in which Kinneging puts his hand over the camera lens and threatens Castricum. The journalist says that Kinneging strangled him; Kinneging denied this. Both men are consulting their lawyers.

On the tape, Kinneging grabs the camera and says. "I'm not involved in politics so I do not have to behave in a civilized way to you." A rather interesting take on the rules of morality from the professor who then adds, "Do you see the pond over there? Next time you folks come around here, you will go into it and your camera, too!" And later, "If I see on television any of what you have just filmed, I will find you!" Presumably, the results would be unpleasant for Castricum.

To read the entire article click here

Norway As Example: It's Forbidden to Discuss How Political Apologists for Terror-Using Groups Unintentionally Increase Terrorism

Note: This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post in response to recent events. I hope this is the last time I address the issue. If you are going to forward or post a copy please use this one as it has a number of small improvements and is not cut.

It is available in Norwegian at http://wp.me/p1mneq-6a9 Scroll down past the English version. I have not been able to check this translation personally.

Before I begin I want to make five points absolutely clear:

1. I was one of the first people in the world to write condemning the action in Norway as terrorism and as committed by a right-winger. Therefore--and based on my career of 35 years including 30 years working on counterterrorism--it should be clear that I would never endorse the murder of dozens of people. The irony is that a plea to fight terrorism by not granting it rewards was distorted into a pro-terrorist position!

2. A large portion of the Norwegian mass media has repeatedly stated that I endorsed the killings and called the kids at the camp terrorists. This is a lie. False quotes were attributed to my article. To my best knowledge, nobody in Norway tried to establish the truth or report fairly.

3. No Norwegian media--indeed no reporter from anywhere in the world--made any attempt to interview me on this issue and find out what I thought and what I wrote. Imagine, this is the biggest story in Norway and nobody contacted me at all.

4. The Jerusalem Post never discussed this issue with me nor contacted me to discuss the issue and hear my position. I have written for this newspaper for about 30 years without a single controversy arising before.

5. We have arrived at the strange situation in which the Norwegian media and apparently the Norwegian government considers me to be "pro-terrorist" but does not consider Hamas (and a number of other groups one could name) to be "pro-terrorist."

What explains this kind of thing--deliberate lies, deceitful reporting, disinterest in truth, disinterest in fairness? Answer: The conversion of the public debate and media into propaganda exercises in which (ironically, McCarthyist) witchhunts are conducted and those entrusted with the sacred pursuit of truth and accuracy use their positions to spread lies, incitement, and indoctrination.

This has been going on now for some years but there's nothing like experiencing something first-hand to comprehend it well. I now hope to get back to work as an analyst of international affairs and especially of the Middle East.

Foreign Minister Store with Hamas Prime Minister Haniya: Smiles at Hamas, Frown at Israel. Deny Being an Enabler of Terrorism. Norwegian media accuses me--but not Hamas--of supporting terrorism. Haniya on US. assassination of Usama bin Ladin, “Of course we condemn the…killing of a Muslim jihad fighter….We pray for Allah to cover him with His mercy, next to the prophets, the righteous, and the martyrs."

A Case Study from Norway:
It Is Forbidden to Discuss How Political Enablers of Terrorist Groups Unintentionally Encourage Terrorism Without Being Labelled A Terrorist

By Barry Rubin

“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasir Arafat and said: `Iif you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the state of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” --President Shimon Peres, May 2011

We want Palestine in its entirety—so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst…. We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well." -- Hamas leader Mahmud Zahhar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiasm for helping Hamas. .

Ironically, the reaction to my article, “The Oslo Syndrome,” proved its thesis, the same point as the one President Shimon Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.

The Norwegian government and media establishment wants no honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there.

How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing?

The blog “Israel Matzav” sums up my position very well:

“Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government's support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?”

And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate--as the ambassador portrayed his country’s view--that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state eleven years ago) but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology--right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic--but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.

I didn’t write about the content of his ideology but about his choice of strategy on the basis of my three decades’ of scholarly study about terrorism. Why did the Norwegian terrorist think that killing people would help—not hurt—his cause? Because like terrorists around the world he sees other groups that use terrorism succeed politically, build a mass base of support, and gain sympathy for their cause despite their methods.

Second, nobody else apologizes for criticizing Israel in the harshest terms after terrorist attacks, something I did not do to Norway. No newspaper in the world to my knowledge apologized for the terrible things written on its pages about the United States after September 11.

The deputy foreign minister and foreign minister of Norway, who both attacked me, have never criticized Hamas or Hizballah by name. Last May, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained, “We condemn organizations that are involved in terrorism, but Norway has considered the situation as such that having lists where we put an organization and call it a terrorist organization will not serve our purposes.”

Obviously, if Hamas was named as a terrorist group then cabinet ministers can’t have its leaders to tea. But by not naming it, they are saying: You can commit hundreds of acts of terror and it will cost you nothing politically. But if Israel responds, for example, by counterattacking into the Gaza Strip, we will condemn Israel.

Yes, this is a policy that encourages terrorism and makes it look successful: it wins sympathy for the cause and antagonism toward the victims. But while Norway won’t criticize terrorist groups by name, its officials and media are unrestrained in attacking Israel.

Alan Dershowitz has written from personal observation that in Norway, “Anti-Semitism doesn't even mask itself as anti-Zionism.” And this behavior is carried on by public institutions and media.

Former Prime Minister Kare Willoch criticized President Barack Obama for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he was “Jewish.” Nor the author Jostein Gaarder who wrote an op-ed in Aftenposten entitled, “God’s Chosen People” at a time when three Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped by Hizballah and a war was on, describing Judaism as “an archaic national and warlike religion.” Apology?

In 2008, a Norwegian comedian said on national television, “I would like to wish all Norwegian Jews a Merry Christmas - no, what am I saying! You don't celebrate Christmas, do you!? It was you who crucified Jesus." Apology? Last year the minister of finance spoke at a largely Islamist-organized anti-Israel rally. Apology? A person who has served as a Foreign Ministry official remarked in 2008 that she occasionally wished the UN would send “precision-guided missiles against selected Israeli targets.” Apology?

But I never said and I’m not saying now that a terrorist attack took place in Norway because of its anti-Israel policies or atmosphere. Nor am I saying that Norway “supports” terrorism itself, that it applauds the murder of civilians elsewhere. What I’m saying--as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway—is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group like Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.

You’ve never heard of Samira Munir and Norway’s establishment has swept her story away. She was a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who fought for women’s rights and against sharia law. She was found dead in November 2004, supposedly a suicide but seeming far more likely to have been a terrorist murder. She had received daily death threats by phone and walking down the street. Might this act, whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, get away with it, and suffer no political damage?

If others who have extremist views and/or mental disorders see every day that terrorism produces political advantage and sympathy for those who commit it they are more likely to commit terrorism. If groups see their terrorism is no barrier to being invited to Norway and to have lunch with cabinet ministers while their enemies’ self-defense countermeasures will be condemned and vilified they are more likely to adopt terrorism as a strategy.

The underlying concept of the Norwegian response is that Norway is a country that isn’t supposed to have terrorism committed against it. But Israel is a country that deserves to have terrorism committed against it. My point is that neither country “deserves” to have this happen. That doesn’t mean Norway is guilty or should be punished or that an evil terrorist attack is justified. No, it means that Norway should be more consistently and universally against giving terrorists victories—even though it does so by ignoring their terrorism.

We are now approaching the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. There were those then, including in Norway, who said the United States had it coming and the attack was due to its policies. There are always those—including in Norway—who say that Israel has it coming and the attack is due to its policies.

My view is the precise opposite. I’m saying about Norway precisely the same thing I said about the United States after September 11: the attack proves the need to take a tougher stance against terrorism and against all terrorist groups. If the world thinks al-Qaida won and its attack brought political gains, then there would be more terrorism. As it happened, there was tough action against al-Qaida itself but other terrorist groups concluded that terrorism worked, increased their operations, and did reap political rewards.

The Norwegian government and left-wing media wants there to be two sectors in the world: those immune not only from criticism but from serious discussion of their actions, as compared with those who can be lied about with impunity, have hatred incited against them, and then must apologize for not staying in their place as second-class people with second-class rights to express their views.

What I wrote in the “Oslo Syndrome” is that people who accept rationales for terrorism and reward those movements politically increase terrorism. Equally, those who accept double standards, slanderous lies (without apology) about themselves in the media of other countries, and the consorting of those countries with groups that want to exterminate them only increase that behavior, too.

Here are some good responses to the situation:

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/08/norways-deputy-foreign-minister-appeals.html

A collection of antisemitic cartoons in the Norwegian media:
http://www.israelwhat.com/anti-semtic-cartoons-in-the-mainstream-media/

Alan Dershowitz article (free registration required)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704474804576222561887244764.html

A long analysis of Norway’s actions
http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-song-of-norway-its-antisemitic.html

Peres and Store quotes: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/05/06/peres-criticizes-norway-on-hamas/

Zahhar quote, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/3051.htm

Haniya quote http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2910.htm

A fascinating story about a Norwegian-Arab politician from Syria who has renounced her former antisemitism and become a critic of Norway's policy from that perspective.
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/more-tolerance-norway

Reading Ahmadinejad in Riga

This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is printed here for your convenience.


By Barry Rubin

There’s nothing like having to explain a complex subject to people to improve one’s own understanding of the issues. And when you must tailor the briefing for a specific cultural and historical background, this new angle is also conducive to learning more. Whenever I have to give a talk I learn something new.

So here are a few things that having to explain the Middle East to a group of serious intellectuals, officials, and diplomats in Riga, Latvia, made me understand.

First, in trying to have a good one-sentence explanation about the events of the last couple of months, I hit on this idea:

The question is whether these revolutions are more like that of 1917 or of 1991.

Everyone understood what that meant. In 1917 there was a revolution against a dictatorial government, that of the czar of Russia. The revolutionaries were full of enthusiasm and idealism; many thought the movement would bring real democracy. Instead it brought 70 years of Communist oppression, even worse for many than the previous regime.

The irony is made even more intense by the fact that Riga was the industrial center of Russia, full of workers and hence of a disproportionately high number of Bolsheviks. The Lithuanian rifle regiments were among the most militant and reliable of Red Army forces, also furnishing many cadres who would be the foundation of the Soviet secret police. So while Latvia suffered horribly under Communist rule, a number of Latvians were involved in imposing the new regime.

In contrast, the 1991 revolution was one of liberation from a dictatorship that produced a democratic rebirth. Thus, if the Middle East revolutions turn out like the1917 upheaval it means things will be worse, while if they lead to the result of the 1991 uprising, then those Arab societies will be on the road to something much better.

While I stress that every country is different and go into the details of those differences, I’m expecting Tunisia to be more like 1991 and Egypt closer to 1917. Of course, if I was speaking to an Egyptian audience, I’d use the years 1952 and 1979, that is comparing the other Egyptian revolution—which produced a radical nationalist and military regime—with that of Iran, which brought a military regime. If I wanted to be a bit optimistic, I’d mention 1919, a moderate nationalist revolution that helped produce an independent Egypt with a parliamentary system.

Two other useful points came up in a question from an important political figure. He spoke about how his country “returned” to democracy in 1991 and to a national existence interrupted by invasions of both Nazi Germany and the Communist USSR.

The other key concept is the regional, wider picture. From a Latvian (and most European) perspective, this implies the European Union and NATO, in other words having stabilizing and beneficial—let’s not get into the shortcomings of the EU right now—institutions.

I thought this really put the Arab political problems into perspective. For in the Arabic-speaking world, what is there to return to? Most obviously, that means the Islamist interpretation of an ideal traditional society that in practice would mean a totalitarian nightmare. In Egypt, it could also mean, alternatively, a return to militant nationalism. After all, Egypt is almost certain to elect as president Amr Moussa, the country’s most famous living Nasserist.

So while a “return” to the past in Central Europe was good, in the Middle East it can be disastrous.

As to the other point, in the Middle East regionalization means the attempts of different countries to subvert each other, as Arab politics traditionally functioned. Few outside observers realize that more energy was spent between the 1930s and 1970s or 1980s on Arab states trying to take each other over or battle among themselves than was devoted to destroying Israel. In addition, the Arab-Israeli conflict could reignite for the first time since the1970s. The conflict's decline had clearly began when Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel; the conflict's revival could begin with a new Egypt that no longer feels bound by that treaty.

Several factors make it easier for Central Europeans to understand the Middle East than it is for Western Europeans. They understand that ideology matters, having lived under an ideological dictatorship. That is a concept that many in the farther west find impossible to understand. They also know, living under Russia’s looming shadow that threats still exist in the world.

When you've had the likes of Hitler and Stalin knocking down your door and trampling you underfoot, you're less likely to think that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a harmless clown.

And with all necessary allowances for the differences, I tell them to think about the revolutionary Islamists as being like Communists. They get the parallels: disciplined, revolutionary, ideological, ambitious, willing to conceal their aims, pretending to be moderate at times, setting up front groups, using useful idiots, being patient and keeping the long-term perspective in mind, but unlikely to change their ultimate aims, and many more techniques from the repertoire of Communism can also be seen in Islamism.

I also point out that in Central Europe, the transition from Communism to democracy was eased by the fact that the "dissidents" had religion and nationalism on their side. The churches opposed Communism and supported moderation and democracy; nationalism united the people against the foreign rulers, that is the Russians.

Here, though, I miscalculate a bit in my wording. A distinguished leading figure objects to my use of the word "nationalism." For him, that word implies something hardline and right-wing. It isn't that he's against patriotism that's the problem--as it would someone in a North American or Western European audience--it's that he takes it for granted. You don't need nationalist slogans when the whole nation is united already in wanting to reestablish their own state.

To make this point, I respond: If the USSR had become fully democratic would you have wanted to remain under Moscow's rule? Of course not. But today nationalism in the Arabic-speaking world retains a very ferocious and potentially aggressive breed of nationalism. Here is one area where differences make things a bit misleading and a careful explanation must be made.

Finally, as a small country, ultimately dependent for its security on Western Europe and most of all America, they comprehend how the lack of strength and leadership in those quarters jeopardizes their most fundamental interests. There is now a club of countries around the world who have common concerns in this regard.

In Asia, there are those who fear China and there is India concerned about Pakistan. In the Middle East there are a large set of countries—Morocco, Algeria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the small Gulf states among them—that want Western protection from revolutionary Islamism and Iran. In South America, they have parallel situations of countries really worried about Venezuela and some other ambitious regimes. And there are those in Central Europe and the Caucasus who feel that Russia has not settled down to be a peaceful and benevolent neighbor.

Finally, there are the democratic oppositions in Islamist oriented or radical nationalist states—Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, and Syria—that desperately want Western support and just aren’t getting any.

These dozens of countries don’t complain about America being a unilateral bully, they bemoan its lack of self-confidence and strength. If it fails, their very survival is on the line.

So it’s easier to explain all of these things to Central Europeans, who still remember the lessons of history, than it would be in London or Paris where, many seem to think that the personification of modern evil is George W. Bush and the biggest contemporary international threat often appears to be Israel.

At any rate, nobody is surprised or upset at the idea that events might not turn out so well or assumes that democracy is inevitable and that radicals can be transformed into moderates by sympathy. They know things can go wrong and that the world is a dangerous place.

Some Wisdom on How to Deal With An Economic Crisis

This article was published on PajamasMedia. If you wish to reprint it please link to PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

I'm in Riga, Latvia today, where my grandfather was born and my great-grandparents lived. It is a charming city and I hope to write more about it later. But I wanted to share with you a little story that you might find relevant.

Whether or not you know it, Latvia has gone through one of the most difficult economic situations of any European country, though things are a bit better now. A major bank failure forced a massive increase in government spending and the national debt last year.

One of my conversations was with a Latvian intellectual involved in public affairs. As we discussed the problem I asked what Latvia's government and leadership did about the crisis. Without hesitation he answered:

"What do you do when your economy goes into a crisis like this? It's obvious! You must sharply cut the government's budget of course and that's what we did."

Sounds pretty obvious, doesn't it?

Is America A Declining Power? Its Friends Think So and They Are Scared

Please subscribe for more coverage of breaking stories and analysis you'll find nowhere else.

By Barry Rubin

“What do you think,” asked the reporter, "about the U.S. pressure on China?”

Puzzled, I responded, “What pressure on China?”

And then I realized what he meant. Like many observers, especially those in the Third World, he thinks U.S. policy is tightly coordinated. In other words, he thinks that the United States was about to sell arms to Beijing’s rival, Taiwan, and have the Dalai Lama, who claims to be the rightful ruler of Chinese-occupied Tibet, come to Washington and meet Obama as part of a grand scheme to force China into supporting sanctions against Iran.

This is, partly, where conspiracy theories come from, assuming that every step taken by the United States is carefully planned out and that every event in the world—given American power—is part of a larger scheme. Why believe that the United States itself blew up the World Trade Center? Based on the assumption that the United States is too strong, its intelligence too good, to let a bunch of barely trained terrorists enter country, board planes, and fly them into its tallest building.

It’s sort of a compliment. But of course, the September 11, 2001, attacks did succeed due partly to a mix of American democratic openness and incompetent naiveté (plus luck, of course).

And increasingly the idea of an omnipotent United States, whose wrath must be feared and protection is worth cultivating, is sharply on the decline in today's world. Which is, after all, what President Barack Obama is doing in practice.  But he should be careful what he wishes for because that's what's happening.

In fact, the United States is not pressuring China to raise sanctions against Iran, though it is politely asking it to do so. Indeed, there are some interesting clues here to anyone curious about whether the United States is a declining power. Like clues in any mystery, they are very small and have to be examined carefully under a magnifying glass.

On her first visit to China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly—publicly, mind you—announced that human rights would not be an issue in U.S.-China relations. It is one thing for a U.S. government to play down the question in direct talks, but to announce publicly it was off the table, getting nothing in return, is quite a concession. In diplomacy, concessions are not supposed to be given to make others like you but to obtain a concession in exchange. If the Chinese government believes her, that is a green light for it to act in a more repressive manner.

Come to think of it, the administration in effect did the same thing to the Iranian regime after the stolen election until Iran’s obvious intransigence and public pressure at home forced President Barack Obama to reverse himself somewhat.

Then on another trip, Clinton made as her main publicized argument for China to back sanctions on Iran that unless it did so Israel might attack Iran. That is, she was avoiding any threat of U.S. action against China (support sanctions or we’ll hurt you) or the idea that China must act or the United States would have to do so (support sanctions or one day America may have to attack Iran, whether or not that is true it is a bargaining ploy) but only based on the actions of a third party, Israel.

The implication is American weakness in three respects, saying in effect, we won't pressure you directly, we won't do anything and we cannot stop our ally from acting either.

This is the approach taken by an administration that wants to avoid the use of power at almost all costs, and dozens of other examples can be cited to demonstrate that point. And, by the way, the United States has borrowed so much money from China that Beijing is probably more likely to pressure Washington than vice-versa.

What the Obama Administration has repeatedly signaled other countries can be defined along the following lines:

--To enemies: We are sorry, let’s engage, we’ll make compromises and work out all our problems.

--To key neutrals with whom the United States has ok relations (like Russia, China, and Pakistan): We need you more than you need us.

--To friends outside of Western Europe: We won’t necessarily back you against your enemies. To me the single most shocking example is the refusal to back Iraqi complaints about Syrian sponsorship of terrorism (which also killed Americans) against it, but there are many more.

--To Western Europeans: We won’t ask you to do anything you don’t want to do and if we do you can safely ignore us.

Is this above classification 100 percent fair? No, exceptions can be found. But it is not a distorted picture either.

This is a portrait of a president and an administration which wants to be popular above almost all things, which seeks to avoid conflict, which is apologetic about American power, that not only accepts but endorses the idea that America should not be the world's leader. This is not a liberal foreign policy in the tradition of a Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. It is something new, well beyond anything Jimmy Carter did or said.

It could be argued that this posture is a necessary downplaying of international affairs to focus on domestic issues. The problem is that such a posture invites, rather than defuses, problems. At any rate, contrary to the pre-inaugural predictions of Vice President Joe Biden, the administration has not yet faced a single major crisis. But I don’t think that can be attributed to this strategy and how much longer will its luck hold? Long, one hopes.

One thing, however, should be clear: this is not a retreat forced on America by changes in the world. Neither America's friends, nor even those somewhere in the middle, are demanding that the United States step down from leadership. True, the Western Europeans and some others wanted the United States to be less strident than the preceding Bush administration but not like this.

All this brings us to Lech Walesa, revered leader of Poland’s struggle against both Soviet and Communist tyranny. He has now taken the unprecedented step of going to Illinois to endorse a Republican candidate for governor there. The candidate is a Polish-American but still this is an amazing thing for Walesa to do. It is a signal of how truly upset he is and he is far from being alone.

During his visit, Walesa said:

"The US does not lead morally or politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. That was the hope, that whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today we lost that hope."

Why did Walesa say such a thing? Obviously, there is a general worry throughout many countries about the weakness of the Obama administration. But there’s more:

--Poland had gone out on a limb to accept American defensive missiles, nominally against Iran but really as a sign of U.S. commitment to protect Poland from Russia.

--Not only did the Obama administration change the plan (which is justifiable regarding the anti-Iran defenses argument but not the wider and real strategic purpose) but it did so without consulting the Polish government which was only informed at the last minute.

--The decision was announced on September 17, 2009, which everyone in Central Europe knew was the 60th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, followed by the annexation of eastern Poland to the USSR.

It was a triple slap in the face of Poland and every nation which regained independence from Soviet tyranny.

But that’s not all. Everyone but the Central Europeans seems to have forgotten an open letter sent to Obama last July by 22 top Central European figures, including 7 former prime ministers or presidents, and 9 former foreign or defense ministers begging him not to abandon them. Walesa was one of them.

The letter stated:

“We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States [accepted Soviet domination over it] And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle.”

Six months later there has been no change. The Obama administration didn't even deign to respond to this  distinguished group with a reassuring answer.

Not only is the Obama administration failing to stand up for liberal democratic values—and I mean here not just advocating democracy abroad but even more importantly supporting democratic friends and opposing expansionist dictatorships—but arguably it is not even standing up for U.S. interests.

Even the South American reporter interviewing me, the conversation mentioned at the start of this article, evinced a fear for his own country given the lack of U.S. leadership and failure to oppose dictatorships like Iran and Venezuela.

The good news is that the problem does not arise from America’s people or its military strength or even its economic difficulties. A lack of will, a thirst for empty popularity, and an ideological orientation among its current leaders is to blame.

These factors can be easily remedied if those in power come to understand that they must use power. And I’m not talking here about attacking anybody militarily but combating them by rallying friends and creating a clear, coordinated strategy, toughness, and determined diplomatic efforts.

Many, who support the administration, no doubt find this analysis to be unfair, biased, or even ridiculous. But here’s the problem: a very long list of examples can be provided as evidence of this fact and almost nothing can be added up in the other column.
For people who boast about listening to the rest of the world, they should start listening to the rest of the world that is friendly toward the United States.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Victims of Dictatorship Unite: Why Central Europeans, Jews and Israelis Should Cooperate, Not Compete

Please subscribe

By Barry Rubin


Note: This article is a response to an op-ed by Ephraim Zuroff in the Jerusalem Post. To show my respect for Mr. Zuroff, I gave a blurb which is on the back cover of his latest book. But it is necessary to rethink the relationship between Jews and the peoples of Central Europe—including Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and other countries—regarding the events of the World War Two era. Rather than compete over our sufferings in that period, we should join forces in exploring and exposing the traumas of that period.

Central to Mr. Zuroff’s argument is the claim that any emphasis by Central European countries regarding their own sufferings during World War Two—especially if it focuses on the oppression of the Stalinist USSR—is somehow a challenge to the uniqueness and importance of the mass murder of Jews in those countries. Indeed, it is implied that this effort borders on or even exemplifies antisemitism.

I think this argument is fallacious and a strategic mistake. It is never a good idea to concea history. Due to the existence of the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc until 1991, the truth about the terrible oppression of Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles, Ukrainians, and others was hidden away from the world until recently. As part of their national reassertion, these peoples want to highlight what happened to them and the full horror of their sufferings.

They have every right to do so. And why should we oppose this as long as it does not come with the ignoring or justification of the Shoah? Is our highest priority to set up a competition of suffering , in which we define these oppressions as conflicting rather than mutually reinforcing? Instead, we should fully participate, as Jews and Israelis, in this process for several good reasons.

One factor is that many Jews were among the victims of Soviet repression. In the Lithuanian museum in Vilnius housed in the former KGB headquarters, it is pointed out that about ten percent of those deported by the Soviets in 1940-1941 were Jews. One of them was Menahem Begin. Although being sent to Siberia saved those who survived those camps, this was not the intention. Almost 1,000 Jews were massacred by the KGB in the Katyn forest along with thousands of Poles. Is the blood of these Jews and the tens of thousands who perished in the Soviet Gulag of lesser value than those murdered by the Germans?

Indeed, even if it came a very distant second to the Nazis, the Stalin regime also targeted Jews and greatly contributed to their suffering. If it had not been for the Soviet-Nazi alliance, Hitler might not have been able to start the war in the first place. Stalin turned over some Jewish leaders to the Nazis and being a Zionist was a criminal offense under the Soviet regime, including in the countries conquered by Moscow during the war.

A second reason why we should join with Central Europeans in commemorating and revealing the true extent of this repression and mass murder is to help Jews and others understand today that antisemitism is not a monopoly of the political right. This is of high importance at a time when the main source of antisemitism along with hatred of Jews and Israel in the West is from a left which justifies itself by claiming that it is immune to that contagion.

Third, the idea that Jews should only deal with Central Europeans nowadays by demanding they endlessly proclaim their guilt over the Shoah is counterproductive, likely to produce resentment rather than acknowledgement by them of responsibility and true repentence. By merely demanding they acknowledge guilt over our suffering—often at their hands--while refusing to heed their historic suffering at the hands of others is setting up a conflict exploited by antisemitic elements. We should engage in a dialogue in which we respect their historical experience, which is also that of many Jews as well. On this basis of solidarity against totalitarianism, we can stand together as friends.

In fact, these are precisely issues on which we need to cooperate today. At a time when nationalism is viewed as an unacceptable evil, we should affirm the importance of our shared belief in the preciousness of our peoplehood. We share, too, the experience of knowing that the threats of those who would wipe us off the map must be taken seriously.

These are complex issues. To cite my family’s experience, the Soviets imprisoned my Zionist uncle in a cell with members of the Polish and Lithuanian anti-Soviet resistance; some relatives were deported to Siberia, others were saved from the Nazis by Polish collaborationist police who were secretly members of the Polish nationalist underground; still others were turned in by their Polish neighbors, and some were murdered by Lithuanian security police units; while others were saved by Red Army partisans but then kept as prisoners in the USSR for 12 years.

Mr. Zuroff ridicules the Lithuanian foreign minister for asking “How could it be that while some Lithuanians were risking their lives to save their Jewish neighbors, others were committing crimes by sending them to death?" Mr. Zuroff is right in saying that far more were committing crimes than saving neighbors. But the foreign minister is asking a central question: How did people in each of these countries choose sides and what can we learn from this process?

Finally, there is the question of the Jewish Communists, some of whom tortured and murdered local people—including other Jews—in the service of the Soviet secret police. Antisemites use this to stir up anti-Jewish hatred, just as the Nazis did (a point well made in Latvia’s museum on both the Shoah and their oppression by Germans and Soviet occupiers) . By refusing to deal with this issue we only help them do so. We should discuss this issue honestly. Just as the action of Nazi collaborators did not turn whole countries into war criminals, all Jews should not be held responsible for the deeds of a tiny minority. Moreover, these people did not act as Jews but as enemies of the Jewish people.

It is an important lesson for Jews to understand how some of their number betrayed them. Jewish Communists led the way in destroying the Jewish religion, language, and culture in the Soviet Union and satellite states. This is an important lesson for today where Jewish extreme leftists smear Israel and endeavor to hurt or destroy it.

In short, it is in our moral and political interest to join with Central Europeans in seeking to understand the truth about the past and its significance for the present. That includes acknowledging their suffering from both the Nazis and Stalinists during World War Two, and the latter for the half-century thereafter. One important element here is teaching about the costs and crimes of Communism in Western schools as well as the depredations of Nazism.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment

By Barry Rubin

The Obama Administration has now announced a policy shift expected ever since it took office: the cancellation of U.S. plans to put missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. There are two good arguments that can be made for this step, but there’s a counter-argument that makes it most worrisome.

Nominally, the missile defenses were planned to counter a possible Iranian missile attack on Europe. As such, and as the administration points out, they were dealing with a rather low-likelihood scenario. When President Barack Obama said, "Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," that is probably true in the strict sense of the word.

(By the way, one of the systems being used is the U.S.-Israel Arrow, a good example of the value of the strategic partnership between the two countries).

The second argument for the policy shift is that it will make Russia happy. The Russians view Central Europe, and countries like Poland and the Czech Republic as well as all the other states which once made up the Soviet Union or its satellite states, as their sphere of influence. For the United States to put missiles in two of those countries, even with the eager agreement of their governments, was seen as trespassing.

Here, though, questions can be raised. The most immediate reason why the United States would want to make the Russians happy is to get their cooperation on increased sanctions against Iran. With some other administration, one might suspect there is a secret deal to do so: a missiles for sanctions trade.

With the Obama Administration, however, unilateral concessions (we give now, show we are nice guys, and so you may give us something in future) seem to prevail and I doubt if there is any such arrangement. Indeed, I’ll bet that after swallowing this gift, Moscow will continue to oppose higher sanctions against Iran and will sabotage any that are put into place.

Governments are ill advised to give something for nothing.

The third issue is the effect on Central Europe itself. The Poles and Czechs took a real risk in agreeing to host the missiles. (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say they will get missiles some time after 2015 under the new plan but the Russians don’t seem worried this will ever happen.)

The suspicion in places like Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as those like Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, and a dozen other countries, is that the United States (or at least this president) won’t protect them from the Russian bear. To some extent, at least, they saw this small American military presence as insurance against Russian threats and see losing it as making them more vulnerable.

Republican critics of the administration stressed this aspect. For example, former presidential candidate Senator John McCain responded that this step "has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe." Senator Jon Kyl added: "The message the administration sends today is clear: The United States will not stand behind its friends and views 're-setting' relations with Russia more important."

This, too, is correct. The problem is not so much this specific decision but the context of the administration’s overall philosophy and behavior.

In addition, the Russians are putting a lot of pressure on neighbors that is rarely reported in the Western media: using energy supply leverage as blackmail, buying up strategic industries, making threats, interpreting history to say these countries should be part of Russia or under its sway, backing subversive forces, acting as protector of ethnic Russians in other countries, and making territorial claims.

A number of top Central European former policymakers thus addressed an open letter to Obama asking for his help in July and expressing their fear of Russian expansionism. To my knowledge, there has been no private response or public reassurance by the White House.

The Russians are not impressed at all by Obama and view him as a weak leader who can be stepped on. What the Obama Administration doesn’t understand regarding this point is that if Moscow views him as someone ready to give in on European issues they will also disregard his wishes on the Iranian problem.

So here’s a question: If the Russians continue to reject higher sanctions against Iran, how will the administration respond?

The White House may be right on the missile defense in terms of its technical merits but the Republican critics may be right on the political and psychological effect for Russia’s neighbors of this decision to cancel the missile deployment.

Oh, by the way, Central Europeans will notice--even if Americans don't--that this step comes precisely on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, the act of aggression which most truly symbollizes the Russian claim to their countries as slaves or satellites. The Russian government is justifying this deed today, an action integrally linked to its continuing view of Central Europe as its property. This was a major public relations' mistake by the Obama Adminitration which adds insult to injury for the Poles and Czechs.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books: . To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, .

Central Europe to Obama Administration: Don’t Feed Us to Russia

Central Europe to Obama Administration: Don’t Feed Us to Russia

By Barry Rubin

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern Europe is a remarkable document signed by 22 top Central European figures, including 7 former prime ministers or presidents, and 9 former foreign or defense ministers. It urges the Obama administration to reconsider its policies.

The signers are the best-known and most respected regional leaders including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, former presidents of the Czech Republic and Poland. Other countries represented by former leaders include Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and the Slovak Republic.

Expressing gratitude or past American help in gaining their countries’ freedom, this is probably the most pro-American group of policymakers in Europe (Atlanticist, to use a popular term for that orientation) and yet they express serious concerns at a time when Europe as a whole supposedly is more pro-American than ever. Why?

Most ostensibly they believe that the United States is neglecting their part of the world. It is putting its faith on western European politicians who may flatter Obama but will not support U.S. policies in any meaningful way. The next generation of central European politicians may sound like their western neighbors, thus dismantling what might be called the American lobby in Europe.

A second issue is the irony that an American president who calls himself a liberal is in many ways a traditional conservative Realist who views—whatever rhetoric in administration speeches to the contrary—human rights and democracy with disinterest. The letter states:

“We know from our own historical experience the difference between when the United States stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to "realism" at Yalta [accepting Soviet domination of Eastern Europe]. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle.”

If Obama had been president in the early 1990s, the letter hints rather subtly, “We would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream.” The United States would have put an emphasis on good relations with Russia rather than supporting the real liberty of the nations in the area.

And Russia today is a key reason for their concern. They are deeply worried that the Obama administration is taking a pro-Russian stance which relegates them to Moscow’s sphere of influence in exchange for Russian cooperation—or more likely pretended, not real, cooperation on other issues).

The Russo-Georgian war was particularly worrisome in that context: “To see the Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core principles of [international agreements] and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace…in the name of defending a sphere of influence

They warn that their “people question whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense in some future crises. Europe's dependence on Russian energy also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance.”

Unfortunately, they continue, hopes that Russia “would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been fulfilled.” Instead, Russia is waging overt and covert warfare against them, using “creeping intimidation” and tactics “ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.”

It is quite possible that without U.S. involvement, Russia could reestablish an indirect empire in central Europe. Russia is also more likely to align with Syria and Iran, and thus also with Hamas and Hizballah, than it is to help the United States bring a stable peace to the Middle East.

Of course, these leaders favor good U.S. - Russia relations but not at their expense.

The most immediate issue is the planned U.S. missile-defense installations in the Czech Republic and Poland, “a symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region.” They urge Obama not to back down, something he is already well in the process of doing though the deployments have not formally been cancelled.

That such prestigious leaders and tested friends of the United States, democracy, and human rights are ringing an alarm bell should set off serious rethinking in Washington. Alas, though, the last time some of these leaders spoke up in support of U.S. policy, French president Jacques Chirac, who viewed himself as Europe’s uncrowned king, told them to shut up. Will Obama merely not listen to them at all?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. http://gloria-center.org. His latest book are The Truth About Syria and The Long War for Freedom.