Getting Political In French***

***Warning! The following post get political, its not just a play on words…you have been warned…***

The very first paper I wrote in college presented the two opposing arguments for whether or not the US had the obligation to be the ‘World’s Policeman’. Since writing this paper back in the Fall of 1999 my opinion of this subject has evolved significantly, and I haven’t heard the US referred to as ‘the world’s policeman’ using that particular phrase for many years…until Thursday evening. Of course I’ve participated in the ongoing debate on whether the US should be intervening in the affairs of other nations, to what extent, and what the motivation has been for each intervention (both publicized and ‘actual’). In the past two months I think that the administration has been in a unique position to define the US’s role as one of the most powerful military forces in the world. Our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan is ongoing, although controversial, and the motives behind the initial intervention have been scrutinized along with the consequences of a long-term presence in an attempt to stabilize these nations. This ‘open wound’ as well as our historical relationships with the powers that be in North Africa have forced the administration to tread lightly in the affairs of Libya. While we have taken a stance and sent in a force in the skies, we haven’t put ourselves in real danger in the name of human rights.

So the question was posed to me on my ride back to Tangier by an Arabic teacher who had the same level of French as me. She said she didn’t understand why the US, as the supreme military power, could oust Saddam Hussein so swiftly by itself but only send planes to fly over Libya when the world clearly agrees that Gadaffi must be stopped. I tried to explain to her why I thought this was, in my limited vocabulary, and then the conversation inevitably turned towards the motivation of the US’s involvement in foreign affairs. In my opinion it is never solely for humanitarian reasons. There is always money to be made. This sounds harsh the way I say it, but it is something that I see and has been brought up to me by several Moroccans. While I previously assumed that those in the Arab world were completely against any US intervention, many that I have talked to see the power that the US has (in terms of military force) to do good, but that this ‘good’ turns out to be more of a secondary goal than the original motive.

I’d had an almost identical conversation with my language teacher, but we had taken it further to the subject of whether democracy was the correct model for all of these nations in ‘revolution’. Like most Moroccans, she is happy with the King and while reforms are necessary doesn’t want to change the political system. ” However,” she paused “it is a certainty in a democracy that leaders can’t run off with millions of dollars earmarked for the people”, referring to Mubarak, “and that is something that you cannot guarantee in this system of monarchy.” I’m paraphrasing, but it is honestly something I never considered.

Back to the train, I also wanted to share a very frank part of the conversation with the teacher.

Teacher: What do Americans think of Moroccans, of Islam?

Me: (trying to find the right words to say exactly what I think, but delicately) Well, I think that many do have a negative view of Islam because they don’t understand it and equate it with terrorism. This is partially the fault of the media. I don’t think there is a negative or positive view of Moroccans. Of those who had been to Morocco I heard such great things, others just don’t really know very much about Morocco. What do Moroccans think of Americans?

Teacher: Well, there are two groups. One respects the US as a great power but also recognizes that it is flawed. And this group also separates the American people from the government, realizing that the actions of the government don’t necessarily reflect the desires of all the people. The other group has a more negative view.

Keep in mind that during this conversation we both prefaced our answers with ‘In my opinion’ and ‘from my perspective’.  

This blog was difficult to write. I wanted to present things the way they happened but in an objective way. I also know that not everyone will agree with my often pessimistic view of foreign policy and that is ok. But please comment if you have something to say, and let me know if I succeeded in presenting the conversations objectively and in being a ‘good’ ambassador.