View Openings
View Resumes
Featured Partner
Grand Central Political Magazine
Just Words?
By Booker Stallworth
"Don't tell me words don't matter! 'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words, just speeches?"
That was Barack Obama's skillful response to Hillary Clinton's criticism during the Democratic primary that he is all talk, and good speeches don't necessarily mean results. Clinton argued that while Obama provided rousing and inspirational speeches, she had the stronger grasp of the issues and the knowledge of how to use the presidency effectively from "day one."
Since I don't get the chance to do so often, let me take a moment to say: Mr. Obama, you were right. Sometimes powerful words, expressing our deeply-held, fundamental core beliefs, are exactly what is needed.
Mr. Obama, now is such a time.
The people of Iran are risking their lives for "just words," with every Twitter post, with every rally and protest, with every second of camera phone footage uploaded to YouTube, with every word chanted in opposition to a sham election and the repression of fundamental freedoms.
Iran's "supreme leader" sees the importance of words. After kicking Western media off the streets, cracking down on the internet, and permitting the shooting of protestors, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ruled out any chance for a new vote and claimed the clearly questionable election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an "expression of the people's will."
His warning that opposition leaders "will be held accountable" if they do not halt the rallies, was followed through on this week when the hard-line Islamic theocracy used tear gas and live rounds to break up demonstrations.
The response from European leaders has been clear. As Time magazine points out:
On June 16, four days after the presidential election, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the contested poll a "tragedy" and added that "the extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction." That same day, the Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, said the violence in the streets and the deaths of protesters were "unacceptable." Three days later, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown referred to "the repression and the brutality" in Iran. Over the weekend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel went further, calling on Iran's leaders to "allow peaceful demonstrations, allow free reporting of events, stop the use of violence against demonstrators and free imprisoned people."
In stark contrast, Obama's muted response is baffling. NBC News foreign correspondent Ali Arouzi reported live from Tehran that protestors are holding up signs "begging President Obama not to forget about them."
How ironic that the president elected because of his words has now fallen silent.
This is the teleprompter president; the man of a million great speeches; the leader that promised to bring hope and change, not only to America, but to the world; the man who not only addressed the Iranian people directly in a special video message for all those celebrating the Iranian holiday of Nowruz, but who just recently addressed the Islamic world from Cairo, offering friendship and reconciliation.
More over, this is the president who attempted to claim credit for reformer Mir Hossein Mousavi's apparent victory when it was reported that large crowds of young Iranians turned out for the vote. Now only days later he claims he doesn't want to "take sides"?
Obama says his silence is merely pragmatic restraint, and that to do otherwise might result in a nationalist backlash among the Iranian people. To show vocal support for the protestors would "not be productive," he claims. "Given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, [it would] be seen as meddling."
But Obama seems more offended by the U.S. than the Iranian people are. More than fifty percent of them are under the age of thirty. While the mullahs and the poor people of rural Iran may cling to an irrational hatred of the U.S. tied to our support for the Shah in 1953, the majority of young, modern Iranians have no personal memory of the revolution. They simply want a good life, with the freedoms we Americans take for granted.
It is insulting to suggest that the Iranian people cannot tell the difference between America voicing its support for free and fair elections and basic human rights, and it sending in CIA agents to actively work against someone chosen in a free and fair election.
Obama also argued that there is not much difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.
The day before the election, this may have been true. After all, the Iranian system is about as open and fair as that in Cuba (or South Chicago), and both men had been approved by the true rulers of Iran, the mullahs.
But things change. Events have a way of turning Communist party loyalists like Mikhail Gorbachev into advocates of glasnost and perestroika. And even if Mousavi does turn out to be "McSame," to borrow a phrase, it doesn't change our core belief in the right of people to elect their own leaders. In other words, we don't have to endorse Mousavi in order to endorse the freedom of the Iranian people.
This is no longer about a man; it is about a movement. Obama's dismissive approach tells a people who are risking their lives for a principle, they are dying for nothing.
Obama should not meddle in Iranian politics or endorse Mousavi by name. He certainly should not make promises for military support that he cannot back up, but he can capitalize on this situation to make it clear where America stands. There are some steps he could take immediately to accomplish this:
1. Give a follow-up address to the Iranian people expressing our fundamental belief, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....
2. Say unequivocally that the U.S. has supported, at the cost of treasure and blood in some cases, the freedom of Muslims to govern themselves through free and fair elections in Lebanon, Kosovo, the West Bank, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan - time for Iran to do the same.
3. Make it clear that we support those risking their lives to demand freedom of speech, assembly and the press, and that we would welcome those who need asylum at our embassies in Europe and Africa.
Like a friend who says he will always be there for you, but doesn't show up on moving day, Obama's silence says a lot. Despite all of his overtures to the Islamic world, his failure to condemn a repressive, corrupt regime will signal to Muslims the world over that the new American president has not changed anything, nor does he have any hope to offer oppressed Muslim peoples.
By remaining silent, Obama is missing his moment to say, "Ich bin ein Berliner" or "Tear down this wall." He is missing his opportunity to demonstrate that, at key moments in history, the right message can be a hell of a lot more than "just words."
------------
Booker Stallworth is a senior advisor to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, in Olympia, Washington