Author Richard Bach once said ““Every problem has a gift for you in its hands.” But what is the problem is the gift? That is the problem being contemplated by the Obama Administration after a series of truly embarrassing gift gaffes that make the country look cheap, unsophisticated, or ignorant — or all of the above. The gaffes range from an insulting gift inadvertently given to the Russians by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a returning of a gift to England to the lack of class in giving gifts to the English Prime Minister.
Clinton thought that she had a novel idea for a gift by giving Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a gift-wrapped red button that was supposed to say “reset” in Russian and English. It didn’t. “Peregruzka” means “overloaded” or “overcharged” and is viewed as a term of hostility. When Clinton look at a confused foreign minister asked if they got the word right, he said tersely, “You got it wrong,” Lavrov said. “This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means overcharged.” Clinton responded with a bit of a forced laugh and said “We won’t let you do that to us, I promise.” For the full story, click here. One would have hoped that a few people at the State Department might actually speak and read Russian as opposed to looking up terms in “Russian for Dummies” or wherever this particular word for found.
It was not a good week for Clinton after she got the names of EU diplomats wrong and left people shaking their heads at statement like:
“I have never understood multiparty democracy.It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy.”
The European griped that they traced their democratic traditions to ancient Greece. They have a point. Madison and others cited the democratic roots of ancient Greece in forming our own representative democracy. For the EU story, click here.
The Obamas came off not as much uneducated as uncouth. First, the Obamas sent back a famous sculpture of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to President George Bush and sat in the Oval Office. I can certainly understand that desire to decorate the Oval Office as the Obamas prefer. After all, they kept Bush’s rug. However, they might have found another spot in the White House. Instead, they returned the gift, which rubbed many Britans the wrong way. The British had expressly offered to extend the loan for four years but the Obamas said that they would prefer to send it back. For the full story, click here. It was an odd decision because it is a widely respected and striking bust that was a very thoughtful cultural gift from our allies.
I am more sympathetic over the bust decision (though I believe it would have been wiser to keep it or send it back with greater tact) than I am the controversy over the gifts to Prime Minister and his family. Anyone who has traveled on official delegations will attest to the importance of gift exchanges. In the case of Gordon Brown and his family, the British did it right. Brown gave Obama a unique pen made from the wood of the HMS Gannet, the sister ship of the HMS Resolute. The President’s desk is made from the wood of the Resolute. For history bluffs like myself, it was an exciting and incredibly thoughtful gift. Brown also gave Obama a framed commission for HMS Resolute and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert. For her part, Mrs. Sarah Brown went to extraordinary lengths to get the correct sizes of Malia and Sasha to buy them dresses and matching necklaces from one of England’s best shops, Topshop. She also gave the girl’s pre-publication copies of children’s books.
What did we give the Browns? A box of 25 DVDs of movies like ET that you could pick up for less than $200 in England. It left the impression for some British citizens that we thought that they did not actually have things like DVDs or somehow missed the release of The Wizard of Oz. For the Brown boys, Fraser and John, the Obama’s gave them cheap replicas of Marine One which appeared to have been grabbed in the White House gift shop shortly before the event.
I am truly the last person to object about such issues of the protocol. However, I agree with irate British writers that the treatment of the Blairs was insulting and embarrassing. The First Lady has an entire office and staff that is dedicated to such events. It is indeed one of the most important jobs of the First Lady. The President has an entire cadre of protocol specialists. We looked perfectly wretched in all of this. It is not the diplomatic slight. As a private host, I would have felt obligated to show more effort for a visitor from abroad.
The new Administration may have a considerable number of tasks at hand but they should work a bit harder on acquiring a bit more tact.
For the full story, click here.
“I take that as an admonition to quit criticizing Obama. If that’s not the case then I’ve misunderstood your meaning.”
Jill,
You have misunderstood my point and I’m at a loss to make it clearer.
FFLEO,
If that is your critique of Obama, so be it. I think the teleprompter use and the gift issues are non-consequential matters, you have the right though to dislike whatever gets under your skin. As for FOX News anything on that network has the journalistic integrity of Pravda and CNN, CNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and yes even MSNBC are not far behind. Truthfully though, forgetting the issues or the politics do you really believe George W. is anywhere near Obama’s league as a speaker. My take, of which I have no proof, is that with an MSM that purposely focuses on inconsequential matters rather than the issues, the teleprompter is used to insure the intended message is given and a slip of tongue doesn’t become the issue.
You may not like Joe Biden and/or his politics, but I think you would admit he’s an intelligent man. Yet the media has portrayed him as error prone. It is interesting that most of the media ignored the fact that Limbaugh in his CPAC speech didn’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, yet gave him little ridicule. When you’re playing on an uneven playing field, as is Obama dealing with the MSM, then prudence is the better part of valor.
Jill 1, March 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“…Also,
I must point out that I have not changed in any way, about the issues that matter to me. I have spoken out on them strongly and consistently since I entered this blog (and before in other forums). I have been told to keep silent only since I have criticized Obama. When I criticized bush and cheney for the same things, only trolls said anything about me speaking up. I find this admonition to keep silent on the same issues because they are about Obama, very worrying. Used to be the trolls said people hated bush for pointing out that what he was doing was wrong. Now it is people who critized bush as loudly and frequently as I did, hoping that I will remain silent because I’m speaking about Obama. This is dangerous. If something is wrong, it is wrong. It should be pointed out as many times as necessary to stop what is wrong. That is what I had been doing under bush and it is what I will keep doing under Obama…”
—-
Nonsense! Even before the election, it’s been obvious to me that you’re full of ‘hooey’ on a lot of subjects and I am an ‘original turlee’!
Mespo, another ‘OT’, and I both told you last week (re Gitmo), you need to do some research of your own and get your facts straight – the public ones and, by the look of it, the
‘not so much’.
After all, ‘If something is wrong, it is wrong. It should be pointed out as many times as necessary to stop what is wrong…’
Watermelon Diplomacy/Protocol?
Satire OFF
To the regulars: Our proprietor got rid of the majority of the miscreants’ postings so please let us keep the debates open and perhaps adversarial, as long as they are logical and devoid of ad hominem retorts.
Jill,
As a conservative Republican, I had a very hard time voting for Mr. Obama and you, others, and I must criticize him to whatever extent necessary. Mr. Obama is incredibly naïve and his reliance on teleprompter left and right bobbling head swings is extremely distracting to me. He is supposed to be such a great orator; however, any Fox News person and even the imbecilic G.W. Bush can read a teleprompter, instead of speaking from reasoned thought. Mr. Obama, tear down those Teleprompters and take a high school level speech class. When giving a speech, looking at the people you are speaking to is vitally important. Looking left/right n’ outta sight is an obvious oratorical flaw and apparent to those people in the middle—of the crowd and ideologically speaking—that you are simply reading and not ‘thinking’ your speech through.
Mrs. Hillary Clinton was a pathetic choice for Secretary of State and she demonstrated another bone-headed moment with the red-button “gift,” which was very reminiscent of her Bosnian Sniper Fire heroism.
Mike,
This is what you said above to me:
As much as I like and respect your writing, it is beginning to turn into a “one trick pony” when it comes to Obama. I get it by now you don’t like him.
I take that as an admonition to quit criticizing Obama. If that’s not the case then I’ve misunderstood your meaning. I wish to assure you that it is not a matter of me liking or disliking Obama any more than it was a matter of me liking or disliking bush or cheney. My motives remain the same.
We will have to disagree about the above being unimportant. I stated why I believe there is something to this and you have stated why you believe there is nothing to it. We have not convinced each other of the other’s position. What is different is I did not say to you that you are letting your positive feelings for Obama cloud your judgement. I simply hear out your argument. When I made my argument, you said I was letting my negative judgement of Obama cloud my thinking. This is not true. I may not be able to convince you of this, that’s the case. So this additional charge of disliking Obama as invalidating my thinking and argument is unfair to me. I could easily say the reverse to you, but will not. Arguments stand or fall on their merits and sometimes we simply will not agree. It is insulting to suggest that my argument is based on a negative attitude towards Obama while failing to note that the opposite may be true of your own.
Jill,
This is a big deal in the UK the way Obama’s gray hair and Octo-Mom is hear. Much ado about nothing fueled by a British Tabloid Press that makes our own Newspaper’s seem staid by comparison. Conflating it with not nationalizing our banks is irrelevant. UK’s nationalization and whether or not we follow the same road has absolutely nothing to do with the exchange of gifts. As far as our nationalizing goes.
I am a follower of Krugman and I believe the banks should be nationalized. Krugman though is a great economist and as such is rightly speaking his mind to put pressure on the administration. I’m not sure that Obama isn’t going to nationalize the banks, but is building the consensus. I read as much as I can, but my ego reserves the right to make my own analysis. I’ve lived too long and seen too much to give full credence to the leaking of an administrations intentions, before they are even set. To me Obama is our greatest political mind since FDR and is playing the game perfectly, given the Corporatist control of the MSM.
That does not mean that I’m an “Obamniac” or that I haven’t been critical of certain of his decisions thus far. I have learned to have few heroes, because all of us have feet of clay. Now I can’t remember any instance of telling you to remain silent about your disagreements with Obama, perhaps you can enlighten me. I have continuously stated to you that you should express any opinions you have, negative or not.
What I did clearly say and strongly believe is that you are making far too much out of what I consider to be an inconsequential story and in doing so it appears to me that you are letting your general distaste for the man distort your point of view in this incident. That’s my opinion, which you can take as you wish. Please, however, don’t conflate my critique of you on that specific comment to imply that you have to remain silent in your disaffection. I never implied that, nor would I and thus your response to me:
“I have been told to keep silent only since I have criticized Obama.”
Perhaps you have been told this, but not by me.
Mike S.,
This is a big deal in the UK. The gifts were not the only snub that occurred on this visit. Read the UK papers to see more. I think the real problem is expressed in the gifts. Brown wants Obama to temporarily nationalize our banks. Paul Krugman has a very good anaylsis on the necessity of doing this because we have zombie banks. Obama does not want to do this at any cost, yet not doing so may cost us 10 years of economic hardship. Diplomacy at the level has many meanings. Even if a minion told Obama about the gift as TH suggests, he still approved it. There is more to this than what American papers won’t cover.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/07/government-takes-over-lloyds
Also,
I must point out that I have not changed in any way, about the issues that matter to me. I have spoken out on them strongly and consistently since I entered this blog (and before in other forums). I have been told to keep silent only since I have criticized Obama. When I criticized bush and cheney for the same things, only trolls said anything about me speaking up. I find this admonition to keep silent on the same issues because they are about Obama, very worrying. Used to be the trolls said people hated bush for pointing out that what he was doing was wrong. Now it is people who critized bush as loudly and frequently as I did, hoping that I will remain silent because I’m speaking about Obama. This is dangerous. If something is wrong, it is wrong. It should be pointed out as many times as necessary to stop what is wrong. That is what I had been doing under bush and it is what I will keep doing under Obama.
“As to the Obamas, this is both rude and arrogant. Blowing off the Brits is stupid. The US isn’t going to make it through the economic crises by trying to stand alone, acting like we’re above everyone else. China could prove us wrong in one day trade.
Not only is this an ugly personal action it shows a real misunderstanding of the US’s place in the world.”
Jill & JT,
I disagree with both your takes on this. That some Brits got their nose out of joint on this is meaningless, since this will not alter US/Brit relations one bit. The Brits feel they they are the height of sophistication and yet have the worlds worst and least imaginative cuisine (think of the smell of kidney pie in a restaurant). Beyond that, their history is one of brutality and barbarous behavior.
The article quoted is from the Movie section of the Guardian and reeks of irony rather than opprobrium. It quotes the Times of London (Murdoch owned) and the Daily Mail (right wing tabloid) and no doubt their umbrage is just more phony outrage. They are shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Jill,
As much as I like and respect your writing, it is beginning to turn into a “one trick pony” when it comes to Obama. I get it by now you don’t like him. however, your characterization of this as rude, arrogant and stupid is way over the top. I’m sure Mr. Brown’s personal umbrage, if indeed he even thinks at all about the gifts, which I doubt, will have not one bit of effect on foreign policy or the relationship between our countries. You have a right to blame Obama for what you disagree with, but this finger pointing lacks substance.
T.H. has the right take on this, neither gift from either side, was picked by the Obama’s and Brown personally. That’s the job of a protocol person. Finally, haven’t we all been in situations where we have exchanged gifts with people and either ours or theirs falls below what was given by the other party. I’m sure the potential gifts expected were not known in advance.
“One has to expect a certain lack of tact and sophistication from the Obamas. It’s not like they come from those segments of society where such things are commonly ingrained in people.
We can complain about the supposed plutocracy that has led America for long years, but it must be admitted that leaders who were effectively bred and raised to hold power do a better job when it comes to the social side of diplomacy.”
Jonalan,
Of the comments you have written the one above is probably the stupidest and most ill-considered. You are talking of a mythical societal elite that never existed, except on the lips of their propaganda lackeys. The myth first arose during the time of feudalism and was characterized by canards like “noblesse oblige” and “chivalry.” Read the actual history and you find an elite of brutal thugs, who routinely acted as bullies and harshly mistreated the servile underclass. While at the same time engaging in bloody, senseless wars that were more about plunder than Statecraft.
Read then of the tact and sophistication of the British Gentry and the American copycats. They were hardly tactful and sophisticated people, but basically empty-headed, privileged snobs who regularly mistreated their “lessers” and believed themselves to be “God’s Chosen.”
You talk of leaders who were bred to hold and raise power and all one has to do is look at the incompetence of European Aristocracy and the American Counterparts. Stupid men in general, that were led by their guts and penises from one
boondoggle to another, while convinced of their right to command.
Coming as I do from a working class family, by a strange coincidence of school districting I attend Junior and Senior high School with kids from Long Island’s elite North Shore
(Think Great Gatsby Territory). Some of those I went to school with had large horse stables in their “backyards” and ample grounds to ride on. Some were nice and some were boorish. None were particular special and those “boors” were in general bullies, thugs and stupid despite their supposed breeding.
I worked my way through College (even though I was on a full tuition scholarship I was self-supporting) by delivering liquor to Garden City, a restricted community created for WASPS, and Hempstead Heights a poor black community. The Garden City people, living in their faux Tudor mansions were in general very poor tippers, haughty in their treatment of me and demanded service beyond that expected of a delivery boy. The black people treated me well and were generous tippers even though they had little themselves. Oh yeah, most of the Garden City folk were genteel alcoholics.
Although never even modestly affluent myself through my life I have known many very rich people, who have actually sought out my friendship, I think because I wanted nothing from them.
Some were lovely and some were not. One’s breeding is based on one’s ability to see beyond one’s own selfish desires and
to have empathy/sympathy for other humans.
The gift thing is idiotic and immaterial to diplomacy. In that area I’ll match Obamas and Clintons skill and intelligence to that of either “well-bred” Bush and their lackeys. The social side of diplomacy is really, as everyone knows, for the Society Pages. Real diplomacy is a battle of wits and as we have seen by years of Republican incompetence it works badly when run by the witless.
Given your quoted post I can only assume that you are among those witless of whom I speak.
What was particularly embarrassing was that Hillary stated they had worked hard to get ‘reset’ translated. Google translates it as ‘Сброс’, maybe shoulda tried that one? (I have no clue)
i’d vote for a five dollar limit on the gift exchange.
Being able to demonstrate a flair for entertaining and in selection of thoughtful remembrances depends on good taste and a personal sense of style – not the size of the price tag.
One could also say it was a tad presumptuous of the British to have automatically extended the loan of the bust to Obama, which was presented to Bush by Tony Blair when they both were still in office, especially given Churchill’s significance in Kenyan history.
It would have been just as insulting to stick it in a corner somewhere.
As far as the Bush’s, I remember when French President Sarkozy came to Kennebunkport and they served him hot dogs. I’m still embarrassed! They couldn’t manage some lobster rolls?
Jonolan,
I took it as a class insult. I’m not certain why you feel that’s better than a racial one. The Obama’s are in the top percentile based on class at this time, so it doesn’t even make sense on your own assumptions. Further, most of the world’s poor take great pride in giving the finest gifts/foods/drinks they have when visitors come. If you want cheap, look to the wealthy first. This was a problem of arrogance, not class or race, in both a diplomatic and personal matter.
Mespo,
I was speaking of a largely blue-collar / middle-class upbringing as opposed to race. I’m very sorry that you chose to take it in a racist manner.
It sadly shows the inherent bias and racial tension of your viewpoint. That’s sad; I gave you a little bit more credit than that.
I believe Sara Palin has already shown that she knows how to spend money.
As to Clinton, I agree with Buddha, 29,000 of the open positions are there from people quitting because they couldn’t work for bush. Still they should have asked one of the counter agents to get it right for them.
As to the Obamas, this is both rude and arrogant. Blowing off the Brits is stupid. The US isn’t going to make it through the economic crises by trying to stand alone, acting like we’re above everyone else. China could prove us wrong in one day trade.
Not only is this an ugly personal action it shows a real misunderstanding of the US’s place in the world.
I think it’s just strange. Anyone who’s worked in this sort of thing can say that clearly neither Obama nor Clinton had any personal say in the presents; some protocol/gift officer made a choice that was simply ok’ed. At least Clinton should still have most of the same career staff that Rice had. I blogged about it at http://www.thehegemonist.com/2009/03/diplomatic-gifting.html
Considering Bush did everything he could to destroy diplomacy, a poorly thought out gift is chump change. At least she didn’t give him the DVD of “Dr. Strangelove”, an intrinsically funnier yet even more inappropriate gift. Back to destruction of diplomacy, a faux pas is much different than a se faire mal (pardon if my French is a little rusty). A bad gift in no way compares to adopting an overall diplomatic strategy that resulted in this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN08529121
Diplomats, real ones who do it every day not the figureheads like Clinton or as is often the case political appointee Ambassadors proper, are very serious about peace and good relations. It’s their job by definition. Being a career diplomat takes a lot of time and effort. To the ones I know, it’s less vocation then avocation. When huge numbers of the DC threaten to and indeed do quit because you’ve made their job difficult and/or impossible, that a sign of a far more egregious error than poor gift choice. Maybe Clinton wouldn’t have been so tone deaf if many of the career diplomats who left rather than work for Dictator Bush had been able to stay rather than forced to leave as a matter of conscience.
One has to expect a certain lack of racial sensitivity and haughtiness from the Jonolan. It’s like he comes from those segments of society where such things are commonly ingrained in people.
He also apparently likes the “Master Race” theory–fittingly so I might add, given his predisposition.
One has to expect a certain lack of tact and sophistication from the Obamas. It’s not like they come from those segments of society where such things are commonly ingrained in people.
We can complain about the supposed plutocracy that has led America for long years, but it must be admitted that leaders who were effectively bred and raised to hold power do a better job when it comes to the social side of diplomacy.
Of course – to be heartlessly fair – I doubt that the Palins would have done any better if the situation arose, say in 2012.
“If a man be gracious and courteous to strangers, it shows he is a citizen of the world, and that his heart is no island cut off from other lands, but a continent that joins to them.”
— Francis Bacon, Sr
Sorry to be so “quotey” today, but these are good ones.