I should not be surprised that my nemesis Mark Steyn writes that Obama should not be bowing to foreign heads of state. But there really is a lot of criticism of Obama coming from the conservatives in the USA on this issue. Maybe I need to hold another blog/lesson in foreign affairs.It's pretty obvious that Obama has no need of schooling from me on how to act. This topic never came up in the election promises (as in, if I am elected, I promise to bow deeply to all foreign heads of state). But somehow I knew that Obama would have no trouble figuring out how to handle himself in foreign countries, unlike a certain other US president. Mind you, I never got too worked up about Bush holding hands walking with the Saudi King, and I didn't care when he gave Angela Merkel a shoulder massage.
It's obvious to me that there are two ways to act when travelling abroad. One way is arrogant and disrespectful, at best and violent and murderous at worst. The other is respectful of foreign cultures, and friendly. The second way can also sometimes lead to peace. I am going to ask you which one you think Obama would be, and which one Mark Steyn would be.
I'm not saying that bowing is why Obama got the Nobel Peace prize, but I can tell you that almost everybody out there still complaining about the bow is also scratching their heads wondering why Obama did get the peace prize. I have a whole other blog explaining why Obama deserved the Nobel Peace prize, and not once did I need to mention the bowing.
Please be patient, I am coming to the explanation soon.
Obama bowed because he thought it would be a good thing to do. He just went with his gut reaction, just like Bush did when he decided to attack Iraq. Except that the bowing cost nothing. Not one US soldier or Marine was killed or had legs amputated because of this gut decision to bow. In fact it might even be that some time in the future, some US soldiers will live normal lives instead of being blown up, just because of this simple act of respect.
If it turns out to be a really bad decision to bow to the Emperor of Japan, Obama still has an exit strategy to set it straight. He can just drop a couple more atomic bombs on Japan. That should make the US right wing happy and regain the upper hand on the Japanese, if necessary. (Actually I strongly doubt it will be)
It just boggles the mind that the USA is involved in two wars, has run into staggering debt, crashed the economy, and we still have a class of people in the USA who find the time to criticise Obama because he bent over at more than 45 degrees to greet a foreign head of state. Not surprisingly, they are also the people who got the USA into the mess it's in. Hopefully they will all get a chance to read this blog and find out how mistaken they are.
The picture is Tom Hanks, from the movie "Volunteers" where Tom Hanks is a Peace Corps volunteer arriving in a Thai village, and passing out sticks of gum. It is a slightly more expensive alternative to bowing, often used by American troops, and I guess the Emperor of Japan might have even preferred a stick of gum to a bow. I know I would. If you want to see (and learn something from) the movie, it is currently on youtube, starting here.
Sheesh! Some Americans will insist on persistently displaying their ignorance.
ReplyDeleteObama's bow was pure and simply: protocol.
I don't have any confirming citations for this, but I suspect that there must be a considerable overlap between the idiots who got their shorts in a twist over this and the idiots who can't locate Japan on a world map.
But, then, if they don't care about the planet they live on, how can we expect them to understand the intricacies of protocol.
I did read later from a Japanese expert that Obama's bow was to a Japanese Emperor, a bow of equals. Any less would have neen superior, any more would have been inferior. I didn't know that, and that's probably why they won't let me meet the guy.
ReplyDelete