We Are Now Officially Worried
The headline read, "Clinton Says U.S. Seeks Unity With Muslim World." If she did, it was the lesser of the two sins she committed. Worse, Secretary of State Clinton went abroad and did that which American officials - as officials - should never, ever, ever do - she used her own religion to discuss American policy. "I am a Christian," she said, according to the Washington Post. "Through the centuries we have had many people who have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. They have perverted the religion."
Irrelevant. The Government of the United States, which she represents, is an institution separated from her Church and every other by our founding charter. There had better be no Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist foreign policy emanating from Foggy Bottom.
There are all sorts of countries all over the world with which the United States can have varying levels of positive interaction. It may well be the job of the Secretary of State to find more countries and more levels, but with due recognition that we already have excellent relations with some countries in the "Muslim world," and others - if they want to have relations with us - need to change what they do. And the idea that there is a Muslim foreign policy - or even a "Muslim world" - with which the United States should want to be "united" is seriously offensive.
There are Muslims who regard themselves politically as European, Asian or North American. Even where Muslims predominate, governments and priorities differ. Indonesia, where Mrs. Clinton was speaking, is different in outlook, form and policy from Afghanistan, which is different from Uzbekistan, Bosnia, Turkey and Dubai. What foreign policy priorities do Burkina Faso and Turkmenistan share? India has the second largest Muslim population. Bahrain and Iran have foreign policy priorities that are often diametrically opposite, and one of them has priorities directly opposite to many of ours. Egypt and Saudi Arabia certainly have different views on foreign policy than Syria.
So where is their "unity" supposed to come from?
Which leads to the final problem of Mrs. Clinton's pronouncements. She said a foreign policy priority for the United States and, "one of the central security challenges we face - (is) to how to better communicate in a way that gets through the rhetoric and through the demagogy and is heard by people who can make judgments about what we stand for and who we truly are."
The first two things she should communicate are: 1) The United States separates religion from government at home and abroad, and does not appeal to people's religious views as determinants of foreign policy; and 2) acceptance of diversity, not some enforced or mythical unity, is the hallmark of American success. The real test of democracy is not the fact that a majority rules, but how it hears its minorities - religious, ethnic and political. Protection of individual liberties under the rule of law is "what we stand for and who we truly are." Our unity comes from accepting our diversity - E Pluribus Unum.
Which raises a final point. We believe there are people, Muslims and others, who are not in need of a better explanation. They understand America perfectly well. Precisely what we treasure about our diverse and tolerant system is what they abhor, and they don't want us spreading our ideas in their countries. It is those people, particularly when coupled with arms and a suicidal ideology - not our lack of public relations - that "constitutes the central security challenge we face."
|
No comments:
Post a Comment