ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH IN CAIRO
After hearing the speech and reading the transcript, it wasn’t easy to frame the president’s speech and discern the message that the he wanted to deliver. No wonder why the vast majority of the target audience missed the main point(s) of the speech, not because of lack of intelligence, but because of preconceived ideas, unrealistic expectations, wishful and emotional thinking, and lack of understanding of the American system of governance, policy and strategy making and development. Also, people did not distinguish between Obama the person and Obama the president, which contributed to the confusion. Unfortunately, when we examine the various reactions of different entities and segments in the Muslim World, we found them mostly either too cynical or too cheerful.
The speech consists of two parts. In the first part, President Obama spoke as a person, who – unlike his predecessor – is humble, educated, enlightened, a student of history, pragmatic, and who is driven neither by ideology nor by imperialistic agenda. No wonder why, he praised Al-Azhar, Cairo University, Islam’s tolerance and equality, Muslim contribution to civilization, and the contribution of Islam and Muslims to America. He also mentioned his Muslim father and told his humble personal story, which brought him in contact with Muslims in Indonesia and in Chicago. Moreover, he emphasized mutual interests, mutual respect, universal principles, shared, common aspirations, and global inter-dependence. Even though, this tone is a drastic departure from the tone of the previous administration, it is not surprising for President Obama to say what he said given who he is. However, it seems that this tone has raised people’s expectations for a proportional drastic change in policies and strategies. When those expectations were not met, people felt deceived and interpreted the President’s tone as hypocritical or deceiving PR. So, people found it puzzling to reconcile the drastic change in President Obama’s outstanding courteous and civil tone with what they have perceived as limited or little change in his strategies and policies, and therefore resorted to their comfort zone brushing the speech as rhetoric and conspiracy.
In the second part of the speech, Obama spoke as the president of the United States of America, and outlined his Middle East doctrine, or the tenets of his approach to deal with issues related to the Middle East and the Muslim World. His approach is substantially different from his predecessor(s), which creates a good opportunity for different players, particularly the Islamic and secular opposition and the masses, to shake the chronic stalemate in the Muslim World. However, because it did not include big promises, big changes in policies and strategies, and magic solutions, people over there were disappointed, and dismissed the whole speech as a shallow PR exercise.
By carefully reading the speech, one may deduce the following points and tenets of President Obama’s Doctrine:
Future looking (where do we go from here): it is clear that the president believes that issues will never be resolved so long as people remain prisoners of the past. He said “So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it” and said that he “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”. On most thorny issues, he’d rather focus on where do we go from here rather than on how did we get here.
Balancing principles with interests and practicalities: The president talked extensively about principles but he wanted to tell people to be practical and realistic, and to accept that the implementation of those principles should take into consideration the reality on the ground and the balance of power. And therefore, implementing principles and realizing aspirations require dealing with the current reality while improving one’s (negotiating) position through effective and sustained empowerment and engagement. He also wanted to emphasize that at the end of the day countries and governments are neither think-tanks nor charities. They are after their interests, and these interests should be earned. The main difference between President Obama’s and President Bush’s doctrines is that President Obama is principled but pragmatic. He starts with shared principles and aspirations, advocates negotiation and collaboration, and takes into consideration both mutual interests and the reality on the ground. On the other hand, Bush and his administration started with an ideologically-inspired agenda that disregarded others’ aspirations and interests, and wanted to impose his will and agenda on people and create a new reality, mostly using force.
Collaboration, diplomacy, and coalition vs. unilateralism and excessive use of force: This is also a significant change that was not well received partly because of unrealistic expectations and some obvious confusion in understanding both American and world politics. Most reactions to the speech ‘accused’ Obama of continuing to pursue American interests through different methods, as if people expected America to stop pursuing its interests or expected Obama and his speech to affect sudden and drastic change in policies and strategies. What people in the Muslim world have to realize is that countries will never stop pursuing their interests and that in America, policies and strategies don’t change suddenly, and even the president cannot affect such a change. The maximum the president could do is to change the approach of pursuing national interests. Any change in policies and strategies requires efforts and pushing from the concerned parties (in America and abroad) so that America will be convinced that its national interests require adjustments and changes in policies and strategies. Most governments and players in the Muslim World are either acquiescing or complaining and protesting, but they are not making any significant efforts to change their situation and therefore their status. Both approaches avail to nothing, and it is long overdue to realize that people will not treat them differently just because they are begging such change or are crying foul. Everyone who knows the history of America with the Middle East knows that it is the persistent and prevalent lousiness and irrelevance of the Muslim World (particularly governments) that induced the negative change in the American policies towards the Muslim World. It was interesting that most of those who commented on the speech said that they want and will wait for actions, which was another indication that people are still struggling with the meaning of the speech. This is because one of the key messages of the speech was wait no more, bear responsibility, stop complaining and blaming, and take charge…failures, solutions, change, and relevance are your responsibility.
Straight talk and open, transparent engagement: The president said “But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors”, “I will try to speak the truth as best I can”, and “we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs”. And the president started to adopt this approach in the speech itself. In a speech to extend hand and seek a new beginning with the Muslim world, the president was very forthright about some sensitive issues like the US-Israeli relations, the American perspective on the Middle East conflict, and on the US policy in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Yet, this approach was not well received, as if people wanted either soothing talk even if it remains empty words, or straight talk that includes drastic change and magic solutions. Politics is the art of the possible and has no room for emotions. It is not about liking or disliking a person, a speech, or a policy. It is a struggle of ideas, principles, agendas, and interests. The outcome of such struggle depends on the balance of power and effective engagement. Emotions, begging, complaining, waiting, daydreaming, wishful thinking, denial, and rhetoric avail to nothing. In politics, when you don’t like something, you ask yourself what can you do about it, consider all your options, and choose the best course of action that maximizes accomplishments and minimizes costs. The only thing that distinguishes faithful and principled people from others in politics, is that they do all of that without sacrificing their faith, values or principles, because for them not only the ends should be right but also the means.
Talking directly to people: In his speech, President Obama was mostly addressing the people – not the governments – of the Muslim World. This is a typical approach that he has been adopting even domestically before and after he won the presidency. Indeed, the president and his campaign which transformed after he assumed office in the creation of the new organization called Organizing for America continue to use all medium of communication to educate and mobilize the grassroots.
The key message in President Obama’s speech was you must rely on yourself…you must prove yourself…you must earn your place in this competitive world. I can almost hear the president saying “you have a great religion and great civilization. Yes, there were some mistakes and external interference. But your past and current failures are primarily your responsibility, and you are responsible for changing your situation and shaping a better future. If previous administrations stood in your way, my administration will be hands off or will be willing to help you if you live up to your responsibilites. However, America will not build your economy or your democracy, and will not impose or initiate the needed reforms.”
In his speech, the president used couple of verses from the Quran. But the verses that would have best conveyed his message are 13:11 Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls). ”, “4:79 Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah. but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul. and We have sent thee as an apostle to (instruct) mankind. And enough is Allah for a witness. “, “3:165 What! When a single disaster smites you, although ye smote (your enemies) with one twice as great, do ye say?- "Whence is this?" Say (to them): "It is from yourselves: For Allah hath power over all things." But these verses wouldn’t have been well received either because it would have come as a call to get out of denial, confront reality, take responsibility, and stop blaming and complaining, and these messages are usually not welcome in that part of the world.
So, the president wanted to tell people that he is willing to open new page/chapter and start that page/chapter with this speech full of good will, respect, and straight talk, laid down openly his approach, and put the ball in their court saying “the floor is yours. Show me what and how are you going to contribute to the new page/chapter”. However, because of deep mistrust, unrealistic expectations, denial, deeply entrenched victimhood and conspiracy theory, and political naievty, that opportunity was already missed.
Finally, it seems that another main motive of the speech or at least its timing is to influence the elections both in Lebanon and Iran. The effect of the speech on the Iranian elections remains to be seen, even though the pressure has been significantly but tacitly mounting against the incumbent president and the conservatives, especially after the speech. In Lebanon, however, the speech was a masterstroke and its effect on the elections was obvious. In dealing with these two issues, this administration has already showed its sophistication. Rather than the provocative tone of the previous administration which has mostly backfired and gave ammunitions to enemies, this president and his administration adopted a strategy of openness to achieve maximum results with minimum efforts. In Lebanon, after several smaller moves by US and western officials, a visit by the vice-president who linked future US-Lebanon relations (including economic relations) to the outcome of the elections, and the president’s reconciliatory speech that emphasizes openness and new beginning clearly tipped the balance in favor of the winners of the elections that was almost certainly heading the other way.
