When upward of 1 million people marched behind more than 40 heads of state from around the globe in Paris on Monday, the message was compelling in its poignancy and the force behind it: Terrorism is unequivocally unacceptable. Aside from sheer numbers, the march owes its gravitas to its premiere guest lists comprising leaders who do not always agree: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stood together against brutal violence. There were others – German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Jordan’s king and queen were in attendance. The United States certainly lent its support for the message, but its representation was symbolic. We ought to have done better.
President Barack Obama was absent, as was Vice President Joe Biden. Secretary of State John Kerry was nowhere to be seen. Instead, Jane Hartley, the U.S. ambassador to France, and assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland were in attendance. There is no question as to either woman’s commitment to the march’s message. By not sending a higher-level official, though, the U.S. appears diminished in its dedication to the cause. That is unfortunate, given this country’s role as leader in the global war on terror and correlative beacon of all things free: expression primary among them.
Last week’s attack at the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly newspaper, was outrageous in its brutality and its ideological foundation: opposing free speech and expression. As a nation founded on the premise of freedom – in what we say, think, believe – as a value higher than most others, the United States should have been a leader in Monday’s march. Many U.S. foreign-policy decisions – some with high casualty rates – have been steeped in freedom-related rhetoric. A peaceful march led by nearly four dozen heads of state is an opportunity to demonstrate how highly we prioritize freedom and peace – and how much we abhor violence, particularly that intended to curb freedom and shatter peace. By failing to dispatch a sufficiently high-level official, the United States missed an important solidarity opportunity. In so doing, it suggests just where among our priorities those values lie.
As Obama administration officials have said, sending the president to such an event on such short notice is complicated. Nevertheless, they could have done better and now recognize it. Press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday, “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” Columnist and pundit Fareed Zakaria had an obvious suggestion: “It’s possible you couldn’t send Obama there. I thought this is why God invented vice presidents.”
Biden – or Kerry, or Obama – would have provided sufficient weight on the roster of world leaders united against terrorism and attacks on free expression of ideas. Complicated logistics are not an excuse; the message is clear. Sending diplomatic and political underlings suggests that others’ freedoms are not quite as equal as ours – an offensive notion that runs counter to the United States’ founding ideals and its seminal documents. Obama should quickly and boldly rectify this oversight.
