Nuclear reality too big for Hiroshima rhetoric

Obama declined to apologise for the US nuclear attack on Hiroshima, a fateful military action that is credited with bringing an end to World War II.

 That silence is a damning verdict on his own proclaimed “dream” for humanity. In well-crafted speeches that betrayed attempts to walk the thinnest of moral lines, he said he hoped the world would one day find the courage to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Here are the direct quotes: “Seventy-one years ago on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. ... A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city, and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself. ... Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder the terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past. We come to mourn the dead. ... [We hope that one day we can] find the courage, together, to spread peace, and pursue a world without nuclear weapons.”

Diplomacy is seldom easy. But the fact that Obama did not see fit to apologise for the “death that fell from the sky”, claiming huge numbers of innocent lives and showing for the first time that “mankind possessed the means to destroy itself”, reveals that America believes the action was not wrong. Thus it also retains faith in the possession and potential use of nuclear arms. And that faith reveals much about whether Obama’s “hope” that the world will “find the courage” to eradicate all nuclear weapons is a pipe dream or not.

Many argue that more innocent people would have died had the bomb not been dropped. It’s a credible argument – but doesn’t it also make Obama sound ridiculous? Was he saying that he hoped mankind would have the courage to eliminate nuclear weapons so that more innocent people might die as a result of conventional warfare?

Political correctness often leads to rhetorical tangles like Obama’s, so he deserves some sympathy. Instead, a no-holds-barred statement that ignored diplomatic nicety in favour of historical accuracy might go like this: “Seventy-one years ago on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and, in awe, the world subsequently began stockpiling nuclear weapons. ... Who wouldn’t, since the attack demonstrated that a single bomb could destroy a city and win a war in the blink of an eye? It didn’t matter that Hiroshima underlined mankind’s ability to destroy itself, because America did what it had to do. ... Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come because it’s no longer just us who now have the bomb. We come out of hope that mourning the loss of innocent lives may lead us to pursue a world without nuclear weapons – at least those in the wrong hands. But come to think of it, a nuke-free world might not be that bad; it would after all would enhance the United States’ standing as the top arms exporter on the planet.”

It’s up to you to decide which speech is more sincere. You may also see vast differences between the two, but their messages are strikingly the same: “We are not going to apologise for what we did, because we don’t think we have wronged Japan and the world.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I have no stance on whether America should apologise or not. What bothers me is that the speech sounds a bit like a drunken old man warning his grandson of the evils of liquor and pining for a whisky-free world. 

Obama’s speechwriter led the president to contradict himself. On the one hand he condemned nuclear arms, but on the other, his failure to apologise coupled with his own country’s vast stockpile renders them a “necessary evil”. Declaring that the world should one day find the courage to live without the bomb is equivalent to that intoxicated old man blaming liquor for his addiction and vowing to quit when all shops stop selling it and his pals empty the bottles down the toilet.

Here’s a proposed politically incorrect Hiroshima speech for Obama: “As much as I would love to see a nuke-free world, that is not possible. The Russians have refused to blink and many others are stocking up like crazy, so what are we supposed to do? I come here to tell you that, as saddened as we are, we don’t have a choice.”

Diplomacy, as the old joke goes, is the art of saying “Nice doggie!” until you can find a rock. Events in Hiroshima last week demonstrate it can be the other way round, too. Diplomacy can be the art of saying “Nice doggie” after a rock has been used.

If you think that is grossly insensitive, particularly where Hiroshima is concerned, try applying this popular one-liner to America, nuclear weapons and the world’s future: “Your child will follow your example, not your advice.”