Barack Obama, Reverend Wright and Black liberation theology

By Malik Miah

The groundswell of broad support for Barack Obama (both among Blacks and whites) is a phenomenon that deserves a serious analysis and understanding. It cannot be downplayed by passing it through the lens of pure-and-simple lesser-evilism.

Some radicals dismiss the mass phenomenon, because Obama is a candidate of a ruling-class party. That simplistic rejection of Obama's campaign and its mass support is sectarian: The issue isn't whether to vote for a Democrat, but rather our response to a development that is having a wide-scale impact. How many times, in state after state, have we ever seen citizens of all races line up for hours to hear an African-American man talk about “hope'', on a platform that is fundamentally no different than his opponents?

While I do sympathise with those activists choosing the Green Party campaign of Cynthia McKinney or the “independent” Ralph Nader for their more progressive political program, I believe progressives and socialists should focus our attentions on critically engaging Obama supporters, identifying with their desire for a “new type of politics and direction for the country” — while explaining that Obama is no answer to stop the aggressive wars of US. imperialism.

In that spirit of critical engagement, an objective evaluation of Obama's support, and why it's grown, is instructive.

Mass appeal beyond electoralism

The mass sentiment for the Obama campaign represents more than pure electoralism. It indicates a possible shift in political consciousness, which can either lead to broad-scale disillusionment or begin to awaken the new young generation to engage in more radical politics when the first African-American president acts like all his predecessors in defending the imperial state.

The Obama phenomenon is a result of fears and frustrations, and of hopes that the country can be better. Most Blacks, of course, are excited by an unprecedented possibility of a “Black president''. Others, including many white workers, are fed up with standing still or going backward as the country enters a recession. Obama taps these multiple anxieties. His mass rallies show the desire for change.

The “messiah effect” is why Obama could take on the issue of “race and racism” in the way he did on March 18 in Philadelphia. It's appropriate to look at that speech and fallout — some 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. — to see the complexities of racial progress.

Outstanding speech

As a Democrat and mainstream politician, Obama's speech was far superior to what anyone on the left or the country likely expected. Some have criticised it for not analysing the institutional racism deeply embedded in capitalism — another case of looking much too narrowly at what Obama means for tens of millions of people.

Overall, this was an outstanding speech. Obama refused to throw his former Chicago minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, under the moving bus for Wright's sermon outlining the history of violence by the rulers of the United States.

(It should be noted that Obama later told the ABC daytime talk show, The View: “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and was inappropriate and mischaracterised what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws — then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.'')

The speech's significance, however, is not what he said or didn't say about Reverend Wright. It is the fact that Obama dared to elaborate on the topic to a national audience even if it hurt his chances to win the presidential nomination or to be elected in November. It confirmed to his followers and detractors alike that he is a different kind of mainstream politician.

Obama outlined the origins of American racism from the dawn of English colonialism and independence to the present — the slave trade, chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the racism still prevalent in society, especially among many whites who speak and act certain ways in private, not necessarily consciously but because of cultural upbringing.

Obama told the story of his white Kansas grandmother, who feared Black men even though she loved him. These honest views are felt by all ethnic groups. Everyone has similar family contradictions.

Obama did not discuss institutional discrimination and disadvantages that “people of colour” still face for simply being Black, Latino, Native American or Asian — something a white person has never experienced. That discrimination is why some employment and other opportunities are not offered, or the benefit of the doubt not given, by a mostly white male-dominated power structure.

Yet he went further than I expected, which is the only way to view his comments on Reverend Jeremiah Wright and racial politics. It's why what he said about Wright rang true to the audience:

“Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation [of Reverend Wright's ‘divisive' comments] are not enough.... But the truth is that isn't all that I know of the man.

“The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.... who served his country as a US marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community (by) housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS…

“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

``I can no more disown him than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother...''.

Wright is no hatemonger

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is no “hatemonger” as slandered by the right and many Clinton supporters. He did not give a “hate” speech. His sermons are, in fact, in the best tradition of Black liberation theology.

Read what Reverend Wright (now retired) said in his now infamous December 2007 speech:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, and the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies and non-military personnel'', he preached.

“We bombed the Black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. ‘Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.' [This is a reference to the seldom-quoted final two verses of Psalm 137, which was Reverend Wright's text for this sermon on the dangers of revenge lust — MM.]

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go to work that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are [here the congregation joins in completing the sentence —MM] coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador [a US diplomat previously quoted in Wright's sermon —MM] said that y'all, not a Black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that''.

True or false?

King's precedent

In 1967 and 1968, shortly before his assassination, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at the Riverside Church in New York City about the Vietnam War. This is what he said:

“The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs''.

King called for the immediate end to this “madness''. In his 1968 speech at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, he returned to the theme:

“It is said on the Statue of Liberty that America is a home of exiles. It doesn't take us long to realise that America has been the home of its white exiles from Europe. But it has not evinced the same kind of maternal care and concern for its Black exiles from Africa. It is no wonder that in one of his sorrow songs, the Negro could sing out, “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child''. What great estrangement, what great sense of rejection caused a people to emerge with such a metaphor as they looked over their lives''.

He added:

“There are those, and they are often sincere people, who say to Negroes and their allies in the white community, that we should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem''.

“I think there is an answer to that myth. And it is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm absolutely convinced that the forces of ill-will in our nation, the extreme rightists in our nation, have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time.

“Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated Individuals. And without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must help time, and we must realise that the time is always right to do right''.

Wright and King delivered the same message of truth.

Black liberation theology

This political mixture of the Black Christian church and militancy has deep origins in the African-American community. It is called “Black liberation theology''. It is rooted in Black nationalism and the traditions of Black radicalism. It goes back to the resistance to slavery. The modern version arose during the civil rights movement. It basically combines the philosophy of the Black Christian church and Black nationalism.

Supporters of the ideology of Black liberation theology believe that the system can be reformed and Blacks can bring themselves up by the bootstraps and become full equals in US society. The advocates see a future where the poor can become middle class and CEOs of major corporations; and, of course, elected US senator or even president of the country — some day.

* * * *

Finding this article thought-provoking and useful?

Please subscribe free at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

Help Links stay afloat. Donate what you can by clicking here.

 

* * *

One of the main intellectual articulators of the theory is the Reverend James Hal Cone of Arkansas. As part of his theological analysis, Cone argues for God's own identification with “Blackness''. He explains in A Black Theology of Liberation:

“The Black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles Black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism... The Blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering... Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity'' (pp. 63-64).

Based on the preeminence of “Black experience'', Cone defines theology as “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ''.

Cone's theology asks (and seeks to answer) the question, “What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless Black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?” His answer emphasises that there is a very close relationship between Black theology and what has been termed “Black Power''.

Black power is a phrase that represents both Black freedom and Black self-determination “wherein Black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny''. Cone says Black theology is the religious counterpart of Black power. “Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology''. And “while Black Power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of Black people, Black Theology puts Black identity in a theological context''.

Black nationalists (self-identified or not; few are today) — whether of the Booker T. Washington philosophy of seeking to reform the system, or the more militant Black power ideology of Marcus Garvey and the 1960s followers of Malcolm X — all argued that Blacks must pull themselves up and stand on their own two feet.

Wright's United Church of Christ congregation includes middle-class Blacks like Obama but in the majority are poor and working class. Reverend Wright speaks to the reality of Black history and the subtle and actual racism that his typical church goer has experienced.

His sermons are mainstream, and not anti-American — or against capitalism. He is a “patriot'', as Obama described; but he is the Black American version, who serves as a medic for the marines, fights the wars and comes home to face racial discrimination!

To Reverend Wright there is no contradiction in condemning real racism and urging Blacks to take more personal responsibility for the problems of their community. This is not “radical” or “hate” speech. His criticisms are based on hard facts, not make-believe or white liberal conservative views of patriotism. It's that understanding that enables him to make the comparison between the US empire today and that of the Roman era.

In Wright's speech before the National Press Club, he identifed himself with Black liberation theology and pointed out that the attack on Obama and him by the corporate media and others is in reality an attack on the Black community.

Barack Obama, the former Chicago community organiser, learned his roots as a Black man at his wife's church. He learned his internationalist outlook from his white mother, who worked among the poor in Indonesia. But he is not an advocate of Black liberation theology even though he listened to Wright for 20 years. That's why he can say he never heard Wright speak the words he did last December. He did, and probably nodded in agreement — but as a mainstream presidential candidate with a chance of winning the presidency, of course, he must disassociate from Wright.

Those who expect otherwise are not realistic. The way he did so, by rejecting but not throwing Wright under the bus, was a nod to his youthful base and recognition of his historical roots in the Black community.

Obama is obviously aware of what is called the “Bradley effect”, where a certain percentage of whites will never vote for an African American as president. (The Bradley factor refers to Tom Bradley, the African-American former mayor of Los Angeles, who had a double digit lead in the 1982 California governor's election days before the vote. He then narrowly lost due to racial dynamics — whites telling pollsters one thing, and voting the opposite.)

Barack Obama is also a strong proponent of modern-day Black capitalism. He told Business Week (April 14 issue) that, “My opponents to the right like to paint me as this wild-eyed liberal. But I believe in the market. I believe in entrepreneurship''.

(Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson is one of most prominent advocates of the market system and Black capitalism. The concept of Black capitalism has evolved over the decades. It used to mean advocating an independent “Black economy” —- tied to the nationalist goal of “Black control of the Black community” — tapping the US$800 billion spent by African Americans within the US economy. Today it means striving and believing it is possible to become a capitalist like Bill Gates.)

Ironically, there has been more success in gaining a foothold in big business than in the political arena where Obama is the only Black in the US Senate. Several African Americans have become heads of major corporations. Forty years ago there were none. African American Stanley O'Neil, for example, was CEO of Merrill Lynch, one of the largest investment firms on Wall Street. His grandfather had been a slave.

Since the decline of the civil rights and Black power movements in the 1970s, the conservative pro-big business wing dominates the discussion on improving the lives of African Americans. Traditional Black nationalism, including those who reject “Black capitalism'', has few advocates today.

What next?

If Obama happens to get the Democratic nomination and wins the presidency it can sharpen the debates even more. That's good for society. The real test is yet to come when the Republican right launches its inevitable race-baiting. To this point, the integration of elite African Americans in business, media, the military and politics has made that less effective.

The most interesting aspect about the Obama campaign for me, and what should be for those on the left of the political spectrum, is the mass consciousness unfolding in front of our eyes in support of a “colour blind” or non-racial society. It is evident in all 50 states where “race does not matter” the way it did in the past.

Obama's speech on race, and more importantly his campaign, has initiated a broad discussion about US history including its violence, racist past and why young people need to engage in politics. It could not happen if that change in attitudes weren't taking place.

The left in particular should resist a sectarian response towards this unique mass phenomenon for Obama. The critical choice isn't about voting for Obama, or even a third party alternative. Progressive political consciousness at the end of the day is not primarily an intellectual transformation. For most, it occurs by joining struggles to end wars and occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting racism and ending economic inequalities.

I for one think it is important to critically embrace those backing Obama's campaign. It is not a betrayal of socialist principles to do so.

[Malik Miah is editor of the US socialist magazine Against the Current, where this article first appeared. He is a supporter of the US socialist organisation Solidarity.]

Comments

Obama to gusanos: Imperialist policies to stay

05/23/08 - Miami Herald
Transcript of Barack Obama Speech to Cuban American National Foundation

It is my privilege to join in this week's Independence Day celebration, and
in honoring those who have stood up with courage and conviction for Cuban
liberty. I'm going to take this opportunity to speak about Cuba, and also
U.S. policy toward the Americas more broadly.

We meet here united in our unshakeable commitment to freedom. And it is
fitting that we reaffirm that commitment here in Miami.

In many ways, Miami stands as a symbol of hope for what's possible in the
Americas. Miami's promise of liberty and opportunity has drawn generations
of immigrants to these shores, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes
on their back. It was a similar hope that drew my own father across an
ocean, in search of the same promise that our dreams need not be deferred
because of who we are, what we look like, or where we come from.

Here, in Miami, that promise can join people together. We take common pride
in a vibrant and diverse democracy, and a hard-earned prosperity. We find
common pleasure in the crack of the bat, in the rhythms of our music, and
the ease of voices shifting from Spanish or Creole or Portuguese to English.
These bonds are built on a foundation of shared history in our hemisphere.
Colonized by empires, we share stories of liberation. Confronted by our own
imperfections, we are joined in a desire to build a more perfect union. Rich
in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.

What all of us strive for is freedom as FDR described it. Political freedom.
Religious freedom. But also freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At our
best, the United States has been a force for these four freedoms in the
Americas. But if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that at
times we've failed to engage the people of the region with the respect owed
to a partner.

When George Bush was elected, he held out the promise that this would
change. He raised the hopes of the region that our engagement would be
sustained instead of piecemeal. He called Mexico our most important
bilateral relationship, and pledged to make Latin America a "fundamental
commitment" of his presidency. It seemed that a new 21st century era had
dawned.

Almost eight years later, those high hopes have been dashed.

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy
in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our
adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives,
and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this
vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric,
authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false
promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United
States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision
has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua.
And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While
the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas,
others from Europe and Asia - notably China - have stepped up their own
engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day
Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.

That is the record - the Bush record in Latin America - that John McCain has
chosen to embrace. Senator McCain doesn't talk about these trends in our
hemisphere because he knows that it's part of the broader Bush-McCain
failure to address priorities beyond Iraq. The situation has changed in the
Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people
of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally. We
have not offered a clear and comprehensive vision, backed up with strong
diplomacy. We are failing to join the battle for hearts and minds. For far
too long, Washington has engaged in outdated debates and stuck to tired
blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development -- even though
they won't meet the tests of the future.

The stakes could not be higher. It is time for us to recognize that the
future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to
the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the
past, then we won't be able to shape the future. The Bush Administration has
offered no clear vision for this future, and neither has John McCain.

So we face a clear choice in this election. We can continue as a bystander,
or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President
of the United States, we will choose to lead.

It's time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the
failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future. After
decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances
democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy
towards the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what's good
for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means
measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also
through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the
policeman in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners
heard from jails in Havana.

The first and most fundamental freedom that we must work for is political
freedom. The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy.
I grew up for a time in Indonesia. It was a society struggling to achieve
meaningful democracy. Power could be undisguised and indiscriminate. Too
often, power wore a uniform, and was unaccountable to the people. Some still
had good reason to fear a knock on the door.

There is no place for this kind of tyranny in this hemisphere. There is no
place for any darkness that would shut out the light of liberty. Here we
must heed the words of Dr. King, written from his own jail cell: "Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice in Cuba. Never, in my
lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two
generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. This is the
terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century - of
elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in
dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for
this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will
stand up for freedom in Cuba.

Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four
years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington,
and nothing changes in Cuba. That's what John McCain did the other day. He
joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after
year, decade after decade. Instead of offering a strategy for change, he
chose to distort my position, embrace George Bush's, and continue a policy
that's done nothing to advance freedom for the Cuban people. That's the
political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you
can't take his so-called straight talk seriously.

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to
freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political
prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly;
and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.

Now let me be clear. John McCain's been going around the country talking
about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I'm looking for a
social gathering. That's never what I've said, and John McCain knows it.
After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to
pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions.
There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as
President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of
my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests
of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban
people.

I will never, ever, compromise the cause of liberty. And unlike John McCain,
I would never, ever, rule out a course of action that could advance the
cause of liberty. We've heard enough empty promises from politicians like
George Bush and John McCain. I will turn the page.

It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for
a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban
Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and
remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their
mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban
American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.

I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the
regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy,
beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to
begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in
Cuba - through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.

And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In
Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know
that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his
actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery
condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened
his hand.

We've heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need
steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond
the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures,
independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police
forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support
democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in
the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.

That is what is so badly needed - not just in Cuba and Venezuela - but just
to our southeast in Haiti as well. The Haitian people have suffered too long
under governments that cared more about their own power than their peoples'
progress and prosperity. It's time to press Haiti's leaders to bridge the
divides between them. And it's time to invest in the economic development
that must underpin the security that the Haitian people lack. And that is
why the second part of my agenda will be advancing freedom from fear in the
Americas.

For too many people in our hemisphere, security is absent from their daily
lives. And for far too long, Washington has been trapped in a conventional
thinking about Latin America and the Caribbean. From the right, we hear
about violent insurgents. From the left, we hear about paramilitaries. This
is the predictable debate that seems frozen in time from the 1980s. You're
either soft on Communism or soft on death squads. And it has more to do with
the politics of Washington than beating back the perils that so many people
face in the Americas.

The person living in fear of violence doesn't care if they're threatened by
a right-wing paramilitary or a left-wing terrorist; they don't care if
they're being threatened by a drug cartel or a corrupt police force. They
just care that they're being threatened, and that their families can't live
and work in peace. That is why there will never be true security unless we
focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That's
what I'll do as President of the United States.

For the people of Colombia - who have suffered at the hands of killers of
every sort - that means battling all sources of violence. When I am
President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it
to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia's fight against
the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from
right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike
terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light
on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This
behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation,
and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand.

We must also make clear our support for labor rights, and human rights, and
that means meaningful support for Colombia's democratic institutions. We've
neglected this support - especially for the rule of law - for far too long.
In every country in our hemisphere - including our own - governments must
develop the tools to protect their people.

Because if we've learned anything in our history in the Americas, it's that
true security cannot come from force alone. Not as long as there are towns
in Mexico where drug kingpins are more powerful than judges. Not as long as
there are children who grow up afraid of the police. Not as long as drugs
and gangs move north across our border, while guns and cash move south in
return.

This nexus is a danger to every country in the region - including our own.
Thousands of Central American gang members have been arrested across the
United States, including here in south Florida. There are national
emergencies facing Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Mexican drug
cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to
say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico's effort to crack down.
But we must stand for more than force - we must support the rule of law from
the bottom up. That means more investments in prevention and prosecutors; in
community policing and an independent judiciary.

I agree with my friend, Senator Dick Lugar - the Merida Initiative does not
invest enough in Central America, where much of the trafficking and gang
activity begins. And we must press further south as well. It's time to work
together to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to
tailor approaches to fit each country. That's why I will direct my Attorney
General and Secretary of Homeland Security to sit down with all their
counterparts in the Americas during my first year in office. We'll strive
for unity of effort. We'll provide the resources, and ask that every country
do the same. And we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug
seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted.

We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a
northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a
renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But
we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I'll make
it clear that we're coming after the guns, we're coming after the money
laundering, and we're coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And
we'll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore
funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on
our own streets if we're going to secure the region.

The third part of my agenda is advancing freedom from want, because there is
much that we can do to advance opportunity for the people of the Americas.
That begins with understanding what's changed in Latin America, and what
hasn't. Enormous wealth has been created, and financial markets are far
stronger than a decade ago. Brazil's economy has grown by leaps and bounds,
and perhaps the second richest person in the world is a Mexican. Yet while
there has been great economic progress, there is still back-breaking
inequality. Despite a growing middle class, 100 million people live on less
than two dollars a day, and 40 percent of Latin Americans live in poverty.
This feeds everything from drugs, to migration, to support for leaders that
appeal to the poor without delivering on their promises.

That is why the United States must stand for growth in the Americas from the
bottom up. That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That
means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws. It
means bringing 12 million unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows. But it
also means working with Mexico, Central America and others to support bottom
up development to our south.

For two hundred years, the United States has made it clear that we won't
stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across
the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle - not against foreign
armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and
despair. That is not a future that we have to accept - not for the child in
Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We
must do better.

We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of
the empty stomach. Responsibility rests with governments in the region, but
we must do our part. I will substantially increase our aid to the Americas,
and embrace the Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty by
2015. We'll target support to bottom-up growth through micro financing,
vocational training, and small enterprise development. It's time for the
United States to once again be a beacon of hope and a helping hand.

Trade must be part of this solution. But I strongly reject the Bush-McCain
view that any trade deal is a good deal. We cannot accept trade that
enriches those at the top of the ladder while cutting out the rungs at the
bottom. It's time to understand that the goal of our trade policy must be
trade that works for all people in all countries. Like Central America's
bishops, I opposed CAFTA because the needs of workers were not adequately
addressed. I supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement because there were
binding labor and environmental provisions. That's the kind of trade we need
- trade that lifts up workers, not just a corporate bottom line.

There's nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the
benefits of globalization, instead of steering them to special interests
while we short-change workers at home and abroad. If John McCain believes -
as he said the other day - that 80 percent of Americans think we're on the
wrong track because we haven't passed free trade with Colombia, then he's
totally out of touch with the American people. And if John McCain thinks
that we can paper over our failure of leadership in the region by
occasionally passing trade deals with friendly governments, then he's out of
touch with the people of the Americas.

And we have to look for ways to grow our economies and deepen integration
beyond trade deals. That's what China is doing right now, as they build
bridges from Beijing to Brazil, and expand their investments across the
region. If the United States does not step forward, we risk being left
behind. And that is why we must seize a unique opportunity to lead the
region toward a more secure and sustainable energy future.

All of us feel the impact of the global energy crisis. In the short-term, it
means an ever-more expensive addiction to oil, which bankrolls petro-powered
authoritarianism around the globe, and drives up the cost of everything from
a tank of gas to dinner on the table. And in the long-term, few regions are
more imperiled by the stronger storms, higher floodwaters, and devastating
droughts that could come with global warming. Whole crops could disappear,
putting the food supply at risk for hundreds of millions.

While we share this risk, we also share the resources to do something about
it. That's why I'll bring together the countries of the region in a new
Energy Partnership for the Americas. We need to go beyond bilateral
agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path
toward sustainable growth and clean energy.

Leadership must begin at home. That's why I've proposed a cap and trade
system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of
energy. We'll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by
investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean.
And we'll increase research and development across the Americas in clean
coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken
from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.

We'll enlist the World Bank, the Organization of American States, and the
Inter-American Development Bank to support these investments, and ensure
that these projects enhance natural resources like land, wildlife, and rain
forests. We'll finally enforce environmental standards in our trade deals.
We'll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories
to share technology with countries across the region. We'll assess the
opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down
with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we'll call on the American
people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and
scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean energy solutions.

This is the unique role that the United States can play. We can offer more
than the tyranny of oil. We can learn from the progress made in a country
like Brazil, while making the Americas a model for the world. We can offer
leadership that serves the common prosperity and common security of the
entire region.

This is the promise of FDR's Four Freedoms that we must realize. But only if
we recognize that in the 21st century, we cannot treat Latin America and the
Caribbean as a junior partner, just as our neighbors to the south should
reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas
will only succeed if it is founded on a bedrock of mutual respect. It's time
to turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism
across the region that stands in the way of progress. It's time to listen to
one another and to learn from one another.

To fulfill this promise, my Administration won't wait six years to proclaim
a "year of engagement." We will pursue aggressive, principled, and sustained
diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. I will reinstate a Special Envoy for
the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll
also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected
regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young
Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people.

And we must tap the vast resource of our own immigrant population to advance
each part of our agenda. One of the troubling aspects of our recent politics
has been the anti-immigrant sentiment that has flared up, and been exploited
by politicians come election time. We need to understand that immigration -
when done legally - is a source of strength for this country. Our diversity
is a source of strength for this country. When we join together - black,
white, Hispanic, Asian, and native American - there is nothing that we can't
accomplish. Todos somos Americanos!

Together, we can choose the future over the past.

At a time when our leadership has suffered, I have no doubts about whether
we can succeed. If the United States makes its case; if we meet those who
doubt us or deride us head-on; if we draw on our best tradition of standing
up for those Four Freedoms - then we can shape our future instead of being
shaped by it. We can renew our leadership in the hemisphere. We can win the
support not just of governments, but of the people of the Americas. But only
if we leave the bluster behind. Only if we are strong and steadfast;
confident and consistent.

Jose Marti once wrote. "It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom
with epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at moments that
appear critical. Every moment is critical for the defense of freedom."

Every moment is critical. And this must be our moment. Freedom. Opportunity.
Dignity. These are not just the values of the United States - they are the
values of the Americas. They were the cause of Washington's infantry and
Bolivar's cavalry; of Marti's pen and Hidalgo's church bells.

That legacy is our inheritance. That must be our cause. And now must be the
time that we turn the page to a new chapter in the story of the Americas.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Powered by Drupal - Design by Artinet