This article may sound slightly different in comparison to my other articles. It is for a literary journalism class that I am taking this summer. I'm struggling to find a narrative voice and to get past the facts of journalism that I've been learning thus far in order to expand my mind and take up this new art form. Here's my first try.
On a gray, soggy Saturday morning while most of the town remains asleep, a group of searchers flock to an open blacktop parking lot. They enter carrying empty baskets and “go green” reusable bags in hopes of filling them with fresh, locally grown goods.
Despite the hanging clouds and misty air, fathers carry young daughters on their shoulders, mothers push their sons in strollers, friends walk at a leisurely pace as do the elderly couples that shuffle side by side. All of them with content smiles and friendly hellos. These are the buyers.
Four rows of tall green pillars supporting plexi glass awnings shelter the local goods. The two outside rows allow drivers in their large white vans, rusty pick up trucks and small steel trailers to back in and unload their treasures onto the old wooden tables covered with multicolored fabric, tarps or worn out tablecloths. The middle rows are for the smaller displays showcased on makeshift tables made from stacking milk crates and laying a piece of plywood across. It doesn’t matter what the presentation looks like anyways, it’s what’s being displayed that truly matters. These are the sellers.
The buyers and the sellers almost always interact in the same manner at every booth down every row. The seller automatically says, “Hi there! How are you doing this morning?!” as soon as any buyer walks up to his or her booth. The buyer then replies, “Just fine thank you. How are you?” They make small talk about the rhubarb or the honey or the petunias until the buyer decides to give in and make the purchase or walk away and look for better, cheaper cabbage or eggs or radishes.
The chit-chat creates a low, steady, even cadence that remains constant throughout the small market. The kettle corn popping like a hundreds tiny firecrackers occasionally accompanies the tone.
The earthy smell of dirt and herbs compete with the sweet buttery scent of the kettle corn near the entrance. The sellers of the beloved sweet treat dress their role. A chubby, short woman with thick curly hair wears a long black dress with tiny yellow and red flowers printed on it and a red apron that has faded to a pink. Her partner and the stirrer of the kettle wears a white linen shirt, brown leather vest topped with cowboy hat with a feather stuck on the side.
Their period dress looks ironically similar to the Amish family that sits quietly at their booth on the opposite end of the market. Two young boys wearing similar hand stitched black pants and gray shirts, both with identical black hats stand quietly guarding the onions for sale, “2:00 for a bunch.” Their older sister, a shy, small framed girl draped in a long pink dress and her long golden hair tucked under a white bonnet stands amidst the radishes, also “2:00 for a bunch.” The bearded father and grandfather in straw hats leave, without saying a word to the children, to walk and converse with some interested buyers. The children continue to stand watch over their small selection of vegetables laid upon the wooden table with rusted metal legs.
At this end of the rows the earthy scent mixes with the aroma of brewing coffee and stench of cooking sauerkraut. A man nearby interrupts the monotonous symphony of the marketplace as he loudly exclaims, “DON’T TALK TO ME ABOUT CARBON CAP AND TRADE AND HOW MUCH CARBON DIOXIDE CAN BE CUT DOWN!” The buyers and the sellers seem not to notice and go about their usual business.
The rows become a blur of the sellers and their products. Carnations blend with marigolds that blend with cabbage and beans and mushrooms and peppers and lettuce and cheese and eggs. The buyers start to look the same. The brunette moms, long hair loosely pulled back into a pony tail, wear no makeup and tote their children around with their now half full baskets. The khaki dads wearing plain t-shirts and sandals take their kids to get a dollar bag of kettle corn.
An occasional buyer or seller interrupts this blur. Like the boisterous black women in a lime green skirt with matching jacket and white high heels. Or like the bee women that sells every imaginable product that can be made from bees. Her table is crammed with beeswax lip gloss, soap, candles, honey sticks, honey comb and one gallon, half gallon, jars or plastic bears full of honey. Or the old Amish man that sells twelve different kinds of tomatoes including brown berry, Cherokee purple, yellow pear and black krim. Or the chili lady with her hair in braided pigtails and pajama bottoms printed with red, yellow and green chili peppers who sells strings of red chilies hanging from a large wooden fixture made for that specific purpose.
These slight interruptions are accompanied by upbeat music from a band that recently set up their instruments and speakers. An older hippie man with a scraggly beard and long brown hair strums his acoustic guitar. His playing, however, is drowned out by the younger geeky kid’s accordion. A lanky women dictates to the contra dancers, that have come with the band, over the microphone. “Put-her-on-the-right-we’ll-do-the-dance-one-more-time-now-do-si-do-and-swing” she staccatos as her voice moves up and down.
Soon enough the band and dancers become a blend of the market as well. They are sucked into the low, even tempo of the rows, the goods, the green, the buyers and the sellers.
An hour slowly moseys by and the sun occasionally peaks from the behind the clouds to play, but is quickly tucked away again. The buyers bags and baskets have been filled with the locally grown peppers, personally roasted coffee beans and hand made elk patties. The sellers goods are now sparse on their plywood tables. The tall awnings shelter over what is now becoming the empty blacktop parking lot again. The tone starts to fade to silence. But next Saturday the buyers will come to fill their bags and baskets and the sellers will display their produce and the monotonous, earthy, peaceful rhythm will continue.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Obama’s European Policy: Change or More of the Same?
Change. It is perhaps the most overused word of the new administration. But, as the President’s first 100 days in office come to a close, the question needs to be asked- has changed really occurred with the new president?
The president’s largest trip in his first days in office was his visit to Europe. This trip, highlighted transatlantic relations as Obama visited five countries, Britain, France, Germany, Czech Republic and Turkey, in eight days last month.
This trip was said to have set the stage for upcoming, changing relations between Western European leaders and the Obama administration. While the stage may have been set during these travels, the change that was supposed to have occurred between the U.S. and European allies was little more than superficial.
U.S.-European relations were tense during the Bush administration, most notably after France’s opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Although relations warmed, former President Bush remained an unpopular leader in much of Europe.
Therefore, when President Obama came into office, he already had a major advantage to many Europeans- he wasn’t George W. Bush.
The new administration has already seen a change in attitudes of Europeans towards the U.S. James Coady, the Henry Jackson Society’s European Union Section Director explains, “Most have a more positive opinion of America. Obama’s visit indicated that the U.S. is extending the hand of friendship and cooperation to its allies in Europe, a willingness that many feel was lacking during the Bush years.”
President Obama acknowledged these feelings by stating to a crowd in Strasbourg, “We must be honest with ourselves. In recent years, we’ve allowed our alliance to drift.” This statement reaffirmed to many Europeans that Obama is pledging to revive the ties between the U.S. and Europe.
The first step towards rebuilding these relations may already be in place in the attitudes of Europeans. Currently in Europe, there’s a positive feeling towards the U.S. These attitudes are a change in and of themselves and may have the potential to lead to further cooperation by the Europeans. “I think Obama’s popularity will have some positive impact on the U.S.-European relations. We saw at the G20 that Obama could use his power of oration to get the Europeans on his side,” Coady says.
Obama’s influence, persuasive speeches, and openness did lead to an agreement with several European leaders at the G20 summit held in early April in London to dedicate $1.1 trillion to fight the global economic crisis.
But, although the open talks and positive attitudes are good for handshakes and friendly laughs, they are also at surface level. There still remains a deeper resentment towards America in much of Europe.
“Sociological studies show there is still resentment towards the U.S. independent of its political administration. There’s a fair amount of cultural resentment,” explains Michael Werz, a Senior Transatlantic fellow with the German Marshall Fund and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University‘s BMW Center for German and European Studies. These feelings have possibly hindered Obama’s policy making, especially in regards to the war in Afghanistan, Nato, and Russian relations.
The issue of Afghanistan has become one of Obama’s largest challenges with his transatlantic allies. At the Nato summit, Obama was guaranteed about 5,000 noncombatant troops to help in America’s fight in Afghanistan. The 5,000 troop commitment, in Coady’s belief is, “poor to say the least.” However, he says, “Obama should be commended for his troop surge strategy in that country.”
Obama also spoke with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to limit the nuclear weapons of both countries. For now, the talks between the U.S. and Russia remain just that- talks.
These agreements and negotiations have little to do with the totality of the U.S.’s European policy. They barely scratch the surface of what needs to be accomplished between the U.S. in Europe. In other words, there has been a lot of talk and little action.
The little action taken is in large part due to the difference of opinions between Americans and Europeans towards the use of military force in the war in the Middle East. “The U.S. and Europeans have fundamentally divergent attitudes to the role of military force in international affairs. While the U.S. perhaps places greater faith in the efficacy of military action, the Europeans are more concerned with diplomacy and soft power,” Coady explains.
These opposing stances towards international affairs caused tension over the Iraq War between the U.S. and France, and may cause further tensions if the U.S. keeps pressing for more troops to send into Afghanistan.
And these tensions won’t be changing anytime soon. “These two different approaches to international affairs will remain the same whoever is in power in the U.S. or Europe,” says Coady. That’s a policy problem that Obama may not have the oratory power to change.
The problems with troop dedication may further lead to problems with Nato. “If the Nato alliance can’t stand together in Afghanistan, that begs the question of what Nato stands for and what it signifies,” Werz says.
“With the exception of allies such as Britain and Canada, America’s allies are not contributing enough in Afghanistan. There was little evidence of a shift in Europe’s approach during the Nato summit,” agrees Coady.
The questions surrounding Nato emphasize the need for improved transatlantic relations. The U.S. and Europe must work together on global issues like Afghanistan if alliances want to be maintained. Europe especially needs to rely on protection from the U.S. as it is more vulnerable to attacks due to it’s closer proximity to the Middle East.
If Nato and transatlantic relations do not strengthen, there arises a problem concerning Russia to both the U.S. and Europe. Russia has the potential to use it’s said “sphere of influence” to ally with eastern and Eurasian countries against Nato.
Coady explains, “It is important we do not isolate the Kremlin by condemning their every move. We should cooperate with the Russians when it is in our interests. Equally, however, we must make it clear that aggression abroad is unacceptable. We should not recognize a Russian ‘sphere of influence’ in Eurasia and we must make it clear to the Russians that they must respect the sovereign status of nation-states such as Georgia.”
These issues of Afghanistan, Nato and Russia are all a part of a European policy that the Obama administration is trying to change and start with a “clean slate.” But the issue of change should not fall solely onto the shoulders of Americans and the American government. Europe needs to be willing to change as well, and this is where the real problem with US-European relations lies.
Europe has taken little action when it comes to international relations, especially transatlantic relations. “I believe it is Europe, not the U.S. who is not giving enough,” exclaims Coady. It has been the U.S. making an effort to visit with European leaders, to start dialogue concerning global issues, to take action in the Middle East and to attempt to improve transatlantic relations, that the European need to now reciprocate these attempts.
In order for transatlantic relations to strengthen and for international issue to be addressed, both the U.S. and Europe need to make more substantial progress. If Europeans want the war in the Middle East to end, then they need to help in the fighting. If the U.S. wants to limit Russia’s nuclear power, then both countries need to actively reduce their weapons. If Europe wants to be protected by Nato, then European leaders must be willing to accept new members and readily communicate and cooperate with them.
So far, the administration’s change has been chalked up to new attitudes in Europe, not in new policies. Obama’s celebrity status has won him admirers, but it hasn’t won him cooperators. “As Obama’s star quality begins to fade abroad, people will realize that there has been little substantive change in U.S. foreign policy and the nature of the transatlantic relationship. Any improvements in U.S.-European relations due to Obama’s popularity will therefore be short term,” Coady says.
Transatlantic relations and policies have remained the same for over 50 years. It’s going to take more than a popular president to change that. Coady explains, “Obama has not rejected the fundamental aim of U.S. foreign policy since 1954: the pursuit of American hegemony. . .These central components of foreign policy under Bush will remain pertinent during the Obama administration. It is therefore unlikely we shall see a fundamental change in U.S.-European relations over the next four years.”
So although there’s a new administration with plenty talk of “change”, until action is taken and substantial change is made, the U.S. and Europe are stuck with more of the same transatlantic relations and policies from the past 50 years. Perhaps “change” is still to come.
The president’s largest trip in his first days in office was his visit to Europe. This trip, highlighted transatlantic relations as Obama visited five countries, Britain, France, Germany, Czech Republic and Turkey, in eight days last month.
This trip was said to have set the stage for upcoming, changing relations between Western European leaders and the Obama administration. While the stage may have been set during these travels, the change that was supposed to have occurred between the U.S. and European allies was little more than superficial.
U.S.-European relations were tense during the Bush administration, most notably after France’s opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Although relations warmed, former President Bush remained an unpopular leader in much of Europe.
Therefore, when President Obama came into office, he already had a major advantage to many Europeans- he wasn’t George W. Bush.
The new administration has already seen a change in attitudes of Europeans towards the U.S. James Coady, the Henry Jackson Society’s European Union Section Director explains, “Most have a more positive opinion of America. Obama’s visit indicated that the U.S. is extending the hand of friendship and cooperation to its allies in Europe, a willingness that many feel was lacking during the Bush years.”
President Obama acknowledged these feelings by stating to a crowd in Strasbourg, “We must be honest with ourselves. In recent years, we’ve allowed our alliance to drift.” This statement reaffirmed to many Europeans that Obama is pledging to revive the ties between the U.S. and Europe.
The first step towards rebuilding these relations may already be in place in the attitudes of Europeans. Currently in Europe, there’s a positive feeling towards the U.S. These attitudes are a change in and of themselves and may have the potential to lead to further cooperation by the Europeans. “I think Obama’s popularity will have some positive impact on the U.S.-European relations. We saw at the G20 that Obama could use his power of oration to get the Europeans on his side,” Coady says.
Obama’s influence, persuasive speeches, and openness did lead to an agreement with several European leaders at the G20 summit held in early April in London to dedicate $1.1 trillion to fight the global economic crisis.
But, although the open talks and positive attitudes are good for handshakes and friendly laughs, they are also at surface level. There still remains a deeper resentment towards America in much of Europe.
“Sociological studies show there is still resentment towards the U.S. independent of its political administration. There’s a fair amount of cultural resentment,” explains Michael Werz, a Senior Transatlantic fellow with the German Marshall Fund and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University‘s BMW Center for German and European Studies. These feelings have possibly hindered Obama’s policy making, especially in regards to the war in Afghanistan, Nato, and Russian relations.
The issue of Afghanistan has become one of Obama’s largest challenges with his transatlantic allies. At the Nato summit, Obama was guaranteed about 5,000 noncombatant troops to help in America’s fight in Afghanistan. The 5,000 troop commitment, in Coady’s belief is, “poor to say the least.” However, he says, “Obama should be commended for his troop surge strategy in that country.”
Obama also spoke with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to limit the nuclear weapons of both countries. For now, the talks between the U.S. and Russia remain just that- talks.
These agreements and negotiations have little to do with the totality of the U.S.’s European policy. They barely scratch the surface of what needs to be accomplished between the U.S. in Europe. In other words, there has been a lot of talk and little action.
The little action taken is in large part due to the difference of opinions between Americans and Europeans towards the use of military force in the war in the Middle East. “The U.S. and Europeans have fundamentally divergent attitudes to the role of military force in international affairs. While the U.S. perhaps places greater faith in the efficacy of military action, the Europeans are more concerned with diplomacy and soft power,” Coady explains.
These opposing stances towards international affairs caused tension over the Iraq War between the U.S. and France, and may cause further tensions if the U.S. keeps pressing for more troops to send into Afghanistan.
And these tensions won’t be changing anytime soon. “These two different approaches to international affairs will remain the same whoever is in power in the U.S. or Europe,” says Coady. That’s a policy problem that Obama may not have the oratory power to change.
The problems with troop dedication may further lead to problems with Nato. “If the Nato alliance can’t stand together in Afghanistan, that begs the question of what Nato stands for and what it signifies,” Werz says.
“With the exception of allies such as Britain and Canada, America’s allies are not contributing enough in Afghanistan. There was little evidence of a shift in Europe’s approach during the Nato summit,” agrees Coady.
The questions surrounding Nato emphasize the need for improved transatlantic relations. The U.S. and Europe must work together on global issues like Afghanistan if alliances want to be maintained. Europe especially needs to rely on protection from the U.S. as it is more vulnerable to attacks due to it’s closer proximity to the Middle East.
If Nato and transatlantic relations do not strengthen, there arises a problem concerning Russia to both the U.S. and Europe. Russia has the potential to use it’s said “sphere of influence” to ally with eastern and Eurasian countries against Nato.
Coady explains, “It is important we do not isolate the Kremlin by condemning their every move. We should cooperate with the Russians when it is in our interests. Equally, however, we must make it clear that aggression abroad is unacceptable. We should not recognize a Russian ‘sphere of influence’ in Eurasia and we must make it clear to the Russians that they must respect the sovereign status of nation-states such as Georgia.”
These issues of Afghanistan, Nato and Russia are all a part of a European policy that the Obama administration is trying to change and start with a “clean slate.” But the issue of change should not fall solely onto the shoulders of Americans and the American government. Europe needs to be willing to change as well, and this is where the real problem with US-European relations lies.
Europe has taken little action when it comes to international relations, especially transatlantic relations. “I believe it is Europe, not the U.S. who is not giving enough,” exclaims Coady. It has been the U.S. making an effort to visit with European leaders, to start dialogue concerning global issues, to take action in the Middle East and to attempt to improve transatlantic relations, that the European need to now reciprocate these attempts.
In order for transatlantic relations to strengthen and for international issue to be addressed, both the U.S. and Europe need to make more substantial progress. If Europeans want the war in the Middle East to end, then they need to help in the fighting. If the U.S. wants to limit Russia’s nuclear power, then both countries need to actively reduce their weapons. If Europe wants to be protected by Nato, then European leaders must be willing to accept new members and readily communicate and cooperate with them.
So far, the administration’s change has been chalked up to new attitudes in Europe, not in new policies. Obama’s celebrity status has won him admirers, but it hasn’t won him cooperators. “As Obama’s star quality begins to fade abroad, people will realize that there has been little substantive change in U.S. foreign policy and the nature of the transatlantic relationship. Any improvements in U.S.-European relations due to Obama’s popularity will therefore be short term,” Coady says.
Transatlantic relations and policies have remained the same for over 50 years. It’s going to take more than a popular president to change that. Coady explains, “Obama has not rejected the fundamental aim of U.S. foreign policy since 1954: the pursuit of American hegemony. . .These central components of foreign policy under Bush will remain pertinent during the Obama administration. It is therefore unlikely we shall see a fundamental change in U.S.-European relations over the next four years.”
So although there’s a new administration with plenty talk of “change”, until action is taken and substantial change is made, the U.S. and Europe are stuck with more of the same transatlantic relations and policies from the past 50 years. Perhaps “change” is still to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
