Response | Julius Nyang'oro
The Obama Moment: A Critical Reflection
Two months after senator Barack Obama effectively secured the Democratic Party nomination for president of the United States, it is gratifying to note that the pan-Africanist intellectual world has not for the most part, been lulled to sleep by the Obama "moment." Instead, as demonstrated by most contributors on this eSymposium, serious guestions are being raised as to the meaning of this "moment" and whether we are about to enter a new phase of politics in the United States, and how developments in the United States will impact the broader pan- African world, and especially US policy towards Africa.
The discussions provided in this eSymposium range from the importance of recognizing the symbolic importance of the "moment" especially in the critical fact that for the first time in US history, a black man stands a better that even chance to become president of the United States, to the skepticism that a US president, let alone a black one, would fundamentally change the thrust of US policy towards Africa and the pan-African world. In other words, Barack Obama, with all of his goodwill and determination, is effectively a prisoner of the structural realities of the American political economy. As the US tries to weave its way through the challenges of globalization, and the indeterminate nature of what it may mean to be the lone super-power, any US president will be under tremendous pressure from domestic constituencies to be narrowly focused on "American national interests."
A sober view of the Obama "moment" demands that we view it more with a skeptical eye while we at the same time celebrate the historic (racial) meaning of his elevation to the upper echelons of American politics. It is a fact that there is a limit to what Obama can do to change US policy because of the structural constraints that any president of the US faces, especially when dealing with major global crises. One may argue that currently there are two major crises currently facing the United States -Iraq and Afghanistan. As it is now, these two crises would be left behind by the Bush-Cheney team for Obama to manage. Even though Obama opposed the war from the beginning, it is important to think about the real options that would be open to him in January were he to become president. For advice, he would rely on old Washington "hands" who for the most part would caution against hasty withdrawal, thus undercutting one of his major policy stands during the campaign. I can hear them now "Barack, that was campaign rhetoric. This is the big leagues now, so no foolish mistakes. We have to stay in Iraq a little longer to allow for things to settle down." And we will all be screaming from the outside as to what has happened to our dynamic candidate.
My point is that a major revolution in America's foreign under an Obama presidency would be too much to expect. There might be changes at the margins, but the fundamental basis of US policy would remain the same. There is a congruence of views in the American foreign policy establishment as to what is important for America. At the moment, "global terrorism" and nuclear proliferation top the agenda. And the Washington "consensus" is that these issues should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Obama is not going to veer away from that Washington consensus. We all should therefore brace ourselves to the continued presence of American troops in Afghanistan; neither should we anticipate a quick resolution of the Israel-Palestinian problem.
An example of why the Washington consensus on foreign policy is likely to hold is on the question of "global terrorism." Recalling one of the heated moments in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the issue was what would Obama do to if Al-Qaida camps were discovered in Pakistan. In what may now be an uncomfortable reflection by Obama himself, he noted then that he would be prepared to bomb Pakistan if "credible intelligence" established the presence of Al-Qaida bases. A position that could easily be articulated by neo-cons.
As many contributors to this eSymposium have noted, the most important lens with which we all should be viewing the Obama presidency is that he will be president of the United States, period. His affection for, and family roots in Africa may be points of sentiment for him, but his primary responsibility is to take care of America's "national interests," as defined by the American policy establishment. The parameters of these "national interests" are already set. So in the case of Africa, we should anticipate the continuation of AGOA policies (market liberalization and access to US markets on the basis of levels of economic development); full thrust of WTO; access to African mineral resources (oil); and competing with China.
On the question of human rights and democracy (Darfur, Zimbabwe, DRC, Somalia), it is still an open question as to whether an Obama presidency would be willing to be more aggressive, including the deployment of US troops (not withstanding the legality of the issue). Such an aggressive posture may elicit cries of US imperialism, so there would be a need to tread carefully, even if that may play into the hands of reactionary leaders on the continent such as Bashir of Sudan and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
In the final analysis, I think that we have to understand the Obama "moment" not just in terms of the symbolic meaning of a black man cracking the racial glass-ceiling of American politics, but also in terms of what he and his political organization have accomplished. Obama proved to be a crafty politician who understood the rules of the game in American politics in general, and of the Democratic Party in particular, of what it takes to win. The political team he assembled recognized early that the caucus states were going to be important in this election, while the Clinton machine concentrated on the "big" states. Obama knew that the younger voters had already crossed what my friend James Thindwa calls "the racial rubicon"; and these younger voters were willing to organize, mobilize, and ultimately vote for a non white candidate. Iowa became the first proving ground for this strategy.
And finally, Obama and his camp managed to use modern technology - the Internet - to get hundreds of thousands of small donors to contribute to the campaign, thus out-dueling Clinton in that regard. The bottom line is that Obama was a better and a more clever politician than his opponents. While we may celebrate the moment of a potential black president, the secret of his victory lay in his ability to articulate the aspirations of many disenfranchised people without invoking race. As he learned early, invoking race in the context of contemporary American politics would have been the end of his campaign.