Blackstarline.org » Blog Archive » Who is the 44th president of USA?

A SAVIOR OR A COG IN THE WHEEL?

By Samson Beshir

STOCKHOLM, Sweden
Blackstarline

The 20th of January 2009 is a day that history will be made. Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America. What has been inconceivable for centuries will be proven conceivable. Never previously has a man with that amount of melanin ever been the president of the empire that will go down in history as the uttermost world dominant throughout time thitherto. This fact cannot be regarded as anything less than historical. The question that divides those of us that are experiencing this time in history is: how significant is this historical moment? Is he a savior or merely a cog in the wheel?

To attempt to conclude the degree of significance one must look into different aspects of the matter. The starting point in looking into those different aspects is viewing Obama and his policy in the light of the history of the USA.

Racial significance
The first aspect to be considered is the one that has awakened the most attention - the racial issue. We have all, in an unheard of repeatability; been informed that Obama is the first black president, the first African-American president and so forth. Now, why would somebody be defined merely by the ethnicity of his father? Especially when he has been raised by his maternal white grandparents and given that his father has been absent practically all of his life. He is biologically both white and black but raised in an all-white household. It would therefore, under normal circumstances, make more sense to call him white. Provided that the state of normality would be a state where the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, it would be an understatement to say that the USA is far from normal. A token of the abnormality is the tradition of the hypodescent rule that still flourishes. That is, a child of mixed race is assigned the status of the socially subordinate group, a rule that originates from the days of slavery but apparently is still in use.
Another token of the abnormality is how the historically power deprived group is ready to clutch at a straw for an illusion of power. Over 93% of African-Americans voted for Obama. When told that Obama’s mother is white, 66% of African-Americans but only 8% of European-Americans still consider him black. The majority of the latter classifies him instead as a biracial. A question that immediately arises is, would he still have been elected if the European-American (70% of the US-voters) had also considered him black? Would he have been elected if he had had the complexion of his African father?

Political significance
In what way will Obama’s politics differ from previous presidents? A thorough comparison would require the space of a book. To refrain myself within the framework of an article I will briefly discuss the domestic affaires and then give a short account for the policy towards the Middle East and Africa.

Domestic
Although corporate America has a substantial hold over the nation’s politics, a relief can be found in the source of money that financed Obama’s campaign. It is remarkable that the largest fund for a presidential campaign to date does not consist of the customary copious contributions by corporations. This campaign was instead to a large extent financed in the form of small sums of $100-$200 sent by millions of citizens. Not does this only give a sense of legitimacy it also decimates Obama’s dependency and hence debt to any individual corporate body. Albeit this, the financial crisis and its consequences constrain the actualization of grand reforms. The current scarce national treasure will be a major predicament for Obama in fulfilling the promise of change that his voters have been inspired to believe in. An ability to overcome and overturn the inherited economical situation will be decisive in realizing a tangible change, or to put it simply, no money, no change.

Foreign
When it comes to the foreign policy I will, as mentioned earlier, refrain myself to discuss the Middle East and Africa. A well-established stance stated numerous times by Obama regarding the Middle East is that he intends to focus on the Iranian nuclear program, execute a pull-out from Iraq and deploy troops to Afghanistan. What perhaps is less known is Obama’s position regarding the Israel/Palestine issue. Not surprisingly, he, as did his predecessors, considers Israel an ally in the area. A controversial standpoint however was portrayed in Obama’s speech to the powerful lobby group formerly known as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, now known as the AIPAC, where he proclaimed that:

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”.

The statement is a direct transgression against the UN-resolution about the issue and a sign of how yet another US-president is prepared to disregard international law when it comes to their interests. And as seen before this dictatorial tone is far from stabilizing, it is on the contrary, firewood for conflicts. As the Israeli journalist, peace activist and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery said as a reaction to the speech:

“No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound, one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict”

Obama’s speech was held June 4 last year. During the last twenty days a thousand Palestinians of which almost half were women and children have died in Israel’s campaign to oust the by popular vote elected party, Hamas. Regardless ones opinion about Hamas it should undeniably appear out of proportion for Israel to call it an act of self-defense given that ten Israelis has died during the same time. Is this the sort of shared interest and values of the USA and Israel that Obama referred to?

This dictatorial tone develops into a bullying one when it comes to Africa. It is hard to believe that Obama would bully the continent, let alone the country of his father. But his memo of gratitude to his Kenyan supporters shows us that it certainly is a mean that is considered to be justified by the end. Read and behold the tone in use while addressing a sovereign state:

“Our relationship could be imperiled should your foreign policy be at odds with ours… …our relationship is dependent on your choices… …We are looking for a base in Africa to build our AfriCom headquarters, and Lamu is one of the likely locations.”

The background of the threat-like attitude above is the initiative by the Bush-administration to, under the pretenses of saving Africa from conflicts such as Darfur and the Congo, establish an African Command in Africa. Needless to say it will be lead, coordinated and dictated by the USA. Now, do we [Africans] want a portentous presence of US-troops in Africa? Do we trust the intentions of such an operation? Well, without giving an account of the USA’s countless acts of post-colonialism in Africa and elsewhere, merely the notion that the US feel the need to bully Kenya in order to pave way for AfriCom motivates a cause for suspicion.
Beth Tuckey, the associate director of Program Development and Policy at Africa Faith and Justice Network (AFJN) in Washington DC, put it well in an article written for Pambazuka News, Oct 2 2008, during the launch week for the AfriCom program.

“Never mind that AfriCom’s mandate involves direct military-to-military training and equipping, rather than support for an African Union (AU) that conducts multilateral peacekeeping missions. Never mind that AfriCom’s stated goals involve protecting American interests, rather than ensuring that the African people’s primary needs and desires are met. Never mind that many African governments and African civil society strongly oppose AfriCom. No, the next administration will ignore all of that in the blind belief that the US can unilaterally bring peace and prosperity to the African continent.”

Conclusion
There is no hesitation in my mind that Obama is all and all a better alternative than McCain and need I say, than Bush. He will provide the USA with a Commander in Chief with communication skills that go far beyond those of many presidents before him. He will also have a different approach to issues and heads of states than his predecessor. Nevertheless, although pos¬sessing more political competence, it remains to be seen whether he will be more than a cog in the wheel of the white house machinery. Some would even say that his very election seems like an enormous well-orchestrated PR-coup to cure the mentioned machinery from the unpopularity that Bush has created domestically as well as internationally.
My humble forecast is that he will be neither a cog nor a savior. I am not convinced that Obama’s presidency will actually follow through with a palpable change. What I instead conclude as the most significant historical importance regarding the election of Obama is the symbolic value. Within his lifetime, the USA has gone from a nation administering Jim Crow Laws (which included biracials) to having the son of a Kenyan by the name of Barack Hussein Obama as its president. Moreover, he has been able to, in a race transcending manner; awaken hope where it was slumbering and cause inspiration where there earlier only was frustration. As the late Walter Rodney, a Pan-African activist, scholar and author wrote,

“The possibility of participating in change is a critical variable”.

Having the centauries of enduring physical and psychological oppression in mind one can understand that Obama’s election has had an enormous impact in the collective psychology of the African-Americans. It is on account of that, that even if Obama would turn out to be something else than what he has inspired voters to believe, more importantly the snowball effect has begun to take place. Vast numbers of people who previously never believed that they could be masters of their own destiny have now emancipated their minds from mental slavery. They will not take no for an answer. There will be ten people ready to take on the torch would Obama not deliver and would they not manage then hundreds more will be ready and would they not succeed there will be thousands waiting to take on the challenge. The ball is rolling! As the critical mass is decisive in the viability and sustainability of any progressive movement the activated mass during Obama’s campaign is definitely a step towards the right direction.

To sum it up I will quote the most prominent African-American leader and human rights activist, Malcolm X.

“I for one believe that if you give people a thorough understanding of what confronts them and the basic causes that produce it, they’ll create their own program, and when the people create a program, you get action”

Who is the 44th president of USA?

Shopping Cart

Archives

Blackstarline