One of the most notable features of this year’s American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s annual convention in Washington, DC was the appearance of ex-President Bill Clinton. This was a major development for the Arab-American community. It reflected ADC’s re-energization as well the Obama administration’s openness towards consulting a wider variety of stakeholders, probably. Symbolically, it stands for a sign of legitimation that a former president speak to the group.
Even if I detested his policies towards Arabs, I can understand the need for political engagement by our institutions.
I was too curious to see what he would speak about, especially in the hope he would deliver some message from the administration or suggest something that offers substantive support for our foreign policy positions. But now, we are not THAT strong, yet.
He arrived with a grotesque fanfare, with Arab-Americans jumping from their seats to grab pictures of him and to shake his hands like we are trained Pavlovian fans. Instead of giving him the cool reception he deserves as the butcher of Iraq, via sanctions, and the proposer of the anti-terrorism legislation that paved the way for the PATRIOT Act.
His speech was the subject of much debate afterward. I felt it was barely relevant, elementary, and yet implicitly condescending. Others suggested we could not expect anything better or more, and even asked why should he cater to his audience?
Most refused to read between the lines of his speech. Many were compelled by the soft ambiguity of his talk to take away some positive message. I could not help but read the speech at a deeper level. So what I saw was an implicitly insulting lecture, one that boosted a dangerous misperception of Arab-American political issues.
His talk focused on the reality of global interdependence. The world is so connected that what happens in one part, impacts the other. Swine flu outbreak and the financial crisis are two examples; and the environment is the most urgent issue perhaps, with a disaster possible resulting in a breakdown in social order such as the world depicted by a Mad Max Road Warrior film (his example, not mine).
The way the world system is structured, the world is “unstable, unequal and unsustainable.”
Most conflict in the world, he argues, is driven by identity, even though divisions are blind to the fact that we all share 99.5% genetic commonalities. Therefore, we can be proud if our identities and celebrate our diversity, but not let pride in identity turn to hate: “You teach your children their ethnic heritage; their religious heritage; their cultural heritage with no negative reference to anyone else because it’s the only shot we’ve got to make the most of our interdependent world.”
The speech contained some insights, and was mostly full of textbook liberal politics and current world events. Who would disagree with his emphasis on AIDs and the lack of health care systems in the underdeveloped world, the demonstrated shortcomings of unimpeded free market capitalism (despite the Washington Consensus underhis administration), the urgency of the environment, that Muslims and Arabs were among the victims on September 11, 2001, and the dangers of hate?
Sounds reasonable and bland enough, right? If taken out of context, the insult is missed.
First, the focus on identity trivializes the material bases of our positions and politics. We are not angry at U.S. foreign policy and Israel because of identity differences, but because of invasions, occupations and displacements. While he acknowledges the inequality of the world system, he does not consider that our resentment may come from being on the receiving end of oppression. Talking about identity while ignoring this crucial context is in line with analysis that considers Arab resistance to American and Israeli agenda as ‘civilizational’ or ‘cultural,’ or based on ancient hatreds.
Second, I felt he belittled our concerns with the fate of the Palestinians when he mildly encouraged the Arab-American community’s efforts on it after talking about the big issues such as the prospects of environmental apocalypse. So silly was his analysis, he compared the outcome to a mad max road warrior movie – then he excoriated the crowd for laughing? “It’s not funny.” I think his juxtaposition was intended to suggest we are over-concerned with this problem. He was trying to shift our agenda to care about nebulous problems, while discrediting our issues — all implicitly, meaning without direct intents.
Third, he tried to disclaim his failure to say anything substantive, of interest to us, by suggesting he is limited since whatever he says reflects on Hillary, and he will not say anything not within her talking points. That is understandable, but he could have won important points by tying in the administration’s opposition to the settlements to his rudimentary analysis of identity. Does anyone deny interdependence and exhibit negative identity more than the Israeli settler movement?
Like I said, he was not interested in giving the community ANYTHING. And why should he, we’re not powerful enough to get more than a visit. Sadly, that was a major development in and of itself.
Fourth, I read his remarks on identity, especially the last one as suggesting that Arab-Americans should be proud of who they are, without hating others, i.e. Jews. Who else could that refer to?
He may have softened that insinuation with an anecdote about a tall Egyptian-American who he saw after September 11, 2001. He had tears in his eyes in fear of the backlash. He told Clinton he was afraid his country would never accept him. It was a compelling story until he said he thought about that story every two or three weeks, which seemed too much like a politician’s feigned nostalgia.
He also referenced Flying while Arab, winning applause, and thereby further camouflaging the speech’s intents. Did the crowd remember that he proposed using secret evidence in deportation proceedings against Arabs and Muslims? And that many of those cases targeted political involved members of communities with minor immigration violations? This is far worse than most of the humiliations and discrimination suffered by many Arab-Americans at airports.
He also sounded silly when he defended the Lebanese elections — which “no one thinks was rigged” — based on his conversations with his “Lebanese friends.” It almost sounded like the classic racists’ defense.
It was vague enough to leave divergent interpretations, I admit. So some progressive activists were pleased with the speech and were gald he did not get into hard politics, since we would have been angrier with the content. That makes sense, but we cannot accept the content of the speech he did give uncritically.
It seems that by not reading between the lines, we miss the richness of a saavy politician’s work. In terms of politicians, he is great. There he was as a president who authored the Oslo illusion, led a sanctions regime that left one million dead in Iraq, bombed Sudan and Afghanistan unilaterally, sponsored anti-terror legislation and, in sum, paved the way for Bush in many respects. After giving a 35 minute low-energy speech, he wandered out to hordes of conference attendees and fanfare that only comes from his former position, rather than what he did with us.
Related posts:
- Mass. Names Arab-American to Top Position
- Political Unity for Arab Americans?
- ADC: Rahm and Barack Should Answer for Abu Rahm’s Statements
- Obama’s Address to the Muslim World: Preview
- NEWS FLASH: Bush Changes Position on Killing Journalists
Great analysis, thanks.
Posted by David | June 16, 2009, 4:13 amBut he's the PRESIDENT it doesn't matter what he did, he's the PRESIDENT!
All hail!
–No seriously. How do we train the politically minded elements of our community not to fawn over with praise at everybody with a title, but figure out how to use the opportunity to leverage their collective power and concerns? If we buy into the logic of "this was not the time for politics" we are disempowering ourselves. Why should we give speakers like Clinton that kind of reprieve that they may not deserve?
Posted by yaman | June 16, 2009, 2:47 am"demonstrated shortcomings of unimpeded free market capitalism".
that system doesn't exist in the first place
Posted by Moataz | June 16, 2009, 9:26 amMoataz,
Well, he cited Iceland, which had about as unregulated a banking industry as possible.
My friend pointed out that the 'Washington consensus' fix-it packages of rapid de-regulation during crises, that were imposed on so many developing nations, is not even being followed by Washington now. Do you think even a libertarian President would risk this ideological experimentation?
Nth_Republic,
Thanks for raising Haiti and Rwanda, which symbolize both the polar problems of interested colonial intervention and disinterested neglect.
And I did not mention the "humanitarian interventionism" bombing of Serbia. Though Kosovar independence resulted and something needed to be done, bombing them into submission was not a national achievement. I would also mention his foolish foray into Somalia, a convenient and selective attempt at international rule enforcement that failed anyways.
Will
Posted by KABOBfestWill | June 16, 2009, 11:18 amWill
With regards to Iceland, it is a poorly-diversified small fish in a big pond whose wild currents were created by others and which the small fish is powerless to mitigate. Diversificaton is having little bits in all manner of different productive fields. It has little to do with regulation or deregulation. A very large chunk of Iceland's GDP came from financial services. When the financial crisis hit, Iceland's economy got hit big-time so bad that other governments took an interest. It's like a 21yo getting smashed on the night of his birthday by borrowing the money from friends, then the friends demand their money back the next day which the 21yo just doesn't have.
A lot of times "deregulation" is not actually free-market mechanics at all but a newly-negotiated deal between industry and government power-brokers whereby (some) industry is favored in a way it previously wasn't, but it could actually be handouts or turning a blind-eye to shoddy business practices rather than allowing companies the freedom to operate. one problem is that way too many people seem to take a mystical (i.e black box) approach to understanding business and the market. The second problem is that it's very difficult for people to conceive of a system operating efficiently without centralized control or compensation and "tweaking".
Posted by Moataz | June 17, 2009, 5:25 amWill, what do you feel ADC's role is in this? Prior to inviting him, is there any reasonable (or even unreasonable) expectation that he would deliver a speech worthy of praise? If not, should ADC not shoulder some blame? Is the prominence of the speaker counterbalanced by the negative effect on the community?
When assessing the speech in light of who the speaker is, it certainly could have gone much worse if he "catered" it to the Arab community. If he focused on "our issues," the speech would have been more belittling, more offensive, and more damaging (at least in the sense that the Pavlovian response would have remained the same). I prefer we fawn over some meaningless or elementary banter about identity politics. Does your critique of the speech fully take into account the setting? (or only partially take the setting into account, in order to address what was missing). Is there any speech that he realistically (i.e., does not contradict his known views on "our issues") would have given at the ADC banquet that does not warrant criticism? If not, shouldn't ADC be criticized as well? Shouldn't ADC provide the platform to a speaker that will empower us, rather than knock us?
Posted by kabobfadi | June 16, 2009, 12:33 pmWill, what do you feel ADC's role is in this? Prior to inviting him, is there any reasonable expectation that he would deliver a speech worthy of praise? If not, should ADC not shoulder some blame? Is the prominence of the speaker counterbalanced by the negative effect on the community?
When assessing the speech in light of who the speaker is, it certainly could have gone much worse if he "catered" it to the Arab community. If he focused on "our issues," the speech would have been more belittling, more offensive, and more damaging (at least in the sense that the Pavlovian response would have remained the same). I prefer we fawn over some meaningless or elementary banter about identity politics. Does your critique of the speech fully take into account the setting? (or only partially take the setting into account, in order to address what was missing). Is there any speech that he realistically (i.e., does not contradict his known views on "our issues") would have given at the ADC banquet that does not warrant criticism? If not, shouldn't ADC be criticized as well? Shouldn't ADC provide the platform to a speaker that will empower us, rather than knock us?
Posted by kabobfadi | June 16, 2009, 12:33 pm100/100 Fadi. Clinton doesn't just knock us his talk aims to neuter us.
Posted by MaHshi | February 24, 2011, 11:54 amWell said, Will. I didn't hear the speech and honestly whenever I hear "Bill Clinton", what fills my mind with anger at him isn't anything related to Oslo or Camp David II (though if you get me talking about those, I'll have plenty to say), it's two unrelated issues: Rwanda and Haiti.
I was young during these episodes, but I remember them as clearly as a boy with politically-minded parents and Haitians in his family could. It's true that Haiti has been a mess for much of its post-independence history, but Clinton left it worse off than before he imposed his colonialist, neoliberal will disguised as humanitarianism and "democratic values" upon it, and the effects of his decisions are still being felt there today, and will be for the foreseeable future. Part of my family is French and Haitian, and discourse within this side of the family about what Clinton was doing to Haiti had a profound effect on me, and it still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth regarding Clinton to this day. He did similar things to Mexico in spreading the NAFTA cancer with his own "special" caveats, though significantly less bloody and irreparable. Let's not forget his failures in Yugoslavia, and his absolutely deplorable, disgusting, conscious failure to act in Rwanda while a million people or more were being hacked to death with machetes. I'm certainly not one who believes that one nation is better than another or that military intervention is the preferable first option or should be even considered in most situations; however, ongoing genocide is the "trump" card for me, and I feel that now that we live in a world with an international community and access to functioning media outlets where we know what's going on virtually everywhere, there is absolutely no excuse to allow the continued, deliberate rapid mass extermination of one people by another. Let's not forget Clinton's block in the UN Security Council regarding Rwanda intervention, the infamous "acts of genocide" vs. "genocide" distinction.
I can't believe he actually talked about the "demonstrated shortcomings of unimpeded free market capitalism".
Sorry for the long, disorganized rant…
Posted by Nth_Republic | June 16, 2009, 8:18 amis there a youtube of his speech?
check out my Bill Clinton blog
http://adugan-billclintonblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by Amy Dugan | June 16, 2009, 2:27 pmA response to "The Minority Position on Bill Clinton’s ADC Address":
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/22/saja-ara…
Posted by response | June 23, 2009, 3:58 amA response to The Minority Position on Bill Clinton's ADC Address
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/22/saja-ara…
Posted by Saja | June 24, 2009, 3:34 pmA response to this article
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/06/22/saja-ara…
Posted by Saja | June 26, 2009, 4:04 pm~Most conflict in the world, he argues, is driven by identity, even though divisions are blind to the fact that we all share 99.5% genetic commonalities. Therefore, we can be proud if our identities and celebrate our diversity, but not let pride in identity turn to hate: “You teach your children their ethnic heritage; their religious heritage; their cultural heritage with no negative reference to anyone else because it’s the only shot we’ve got to make the most of our interdependent world.”~
would LOVE to hear him say this at a Haim Saban funded event and/ or AIPAC banquet. muwahahaha.
Posted by MaHshi | February 24, 2011, 11:56 am