Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
The more one actually listens to Obama and his administration on matters of foreign policy, the harder it becomes to believe that the Romney campaign could ever advance the absurd view that he has made a habit of "apologising for America." Today, he certainly made no such apology:
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.And, most importantly:
We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond? And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.This is not what I call apologising. He made it clear at the beginning of his comment on the violence that the film in question was a senseless, offensive, vitriolic attack. He said that the film was not only an insult to Muslims, but to Americans as well. However, when he said "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video" and then said that it's because of the First Amendment, I was reminded of the White House's request to have the video removed from YouTube. That's not really something they've any right to ask for. That was the only thing I found remotely off-putting about the speech. But apart from that, it was quite suitable. I'm a free speech absolutist, and the Constitution is a document that adheres to similar absolutism.
The only other strange part — the part that tended towards incoherence within the wider context of the speech — was what he said about Iran's nuclear program:
We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty.Andrew Sullivan makes a point of the incoherence:
There is no reference here to the nuclear arsenal of Israel which, if matched by a regional rival, immediately offers the kind of mutually assured destruction that kept the world peaceful during a far more dangerous period, especially for the US. If Israel's nukes were dismantled as a condition for full and open inspection of Iran's key nuclear plants, the US would have a teensy bit of credibility. But Obama is claiming that a lone nuclear power in the Middle East is destabilizing the whole place. No shit. But there is only one nuclear power in the Middle East and it, unlike Iran's disgusting dictatorship, has launched several pre-emptive wars on its neighbors near and far. To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle.(Image: "US President Barack Obama attends the 67th UN General Assembly at the United Nations headquarters." AFP, Emmanuel Dunand)