United States President Barack Obama will either be remembered as one of his country’s greatest ever leaders or possibly its most naive. Whichever way history adjudges it one thing is certain, this is not a presidency that will soon be forgotten. His somewhat misguided speech at the University of Cairo designed to lance the boil that is current US-Muslim relations is either going to reduce tension by default or provide the very extremists he is trying to marginalise with the ammunition they need to take the conflict to the next level.
Obama’s speech, which is beautifully constructed, calls upon the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide to enter into a new beginning founded on mutual trust and respect. It remembers the long history of good relations between the US and Muslims down the centuries making special note of the role played by Muslims in advancing mankind’s development.
It then sets out Obama’s belief that the problems facing both communities are far more compelling than the things that divide them, pursuant to which he lists these shared concerns as items to be prioritised. These include violent extremism, the Palestinian-Israeli conundrum, nuclear proliferation, women’s rights, globalisation and religious freedom.
In accordance therewith there can be no doubting that in measuring the response to Obama the spotlight will fall on the first three items on that list because they cover crucial foreign policy questions on inter alia Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. Moreover the speech can only be considered an initial step which will require that Obama support his words with actions and that his oratory finds a positive response from the Muslim world, US and indeed the planet as a whole.
Prior to any analysis thereof there are two points to bear in mind:
Firstly in order to make their new policies achievable the US underwent a paradigm shift on its approach to foreign affairs. Whereas before nations seeking US endorsement and support needed to be — or headed for — inter alia a democracy, holding free and fair elections and observing generally held principles on human rights, this is now no longer the case. This may well be a result of the fact that every time a free and fair election was held those considered to be unsuitable by the US kept coming into power. Accordingly in order to avoid this and afford recognition to far more countries the qualities that they now require in order to meet their standards include acceptance as a “friendly” government, having some sort of human rights recognition and generally considered by the US to be stable.
Secondly the whole of Obama’s new approach to the Muslim world is founded on the basis that Muslims agree with his priorities and more importantly the US definition of each. Where, for example, he places the end of violent extremism as a top priority, will the Muslim world agree with what he defines as an “extremist”?
With that in mind let’s look through those three priorities referred to above.
The best examples of how people might differ on what constitutes an extremist are Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the case of the former the US is currently targeting al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the Tribal Lands, while the Pakistani army is proceeding against them — primarily at US insistence — in the Swat Valley. Two major problems arise immediately; Pakistan considers the biggest danger to be India and most of the military believe that the bulk of their assets should be employed towards Kashmir rather than fighting fellow Muslims. Moreover consider what would happen if all support to President Zardari was stopped and Pakistan was allowed to choose its own path?
The same applies to Afghanistan. How long would President Karzai survive if there was a pull-out by Nato forces and funding was stopped? Who would replace him and would they be pro-America? I hardly think so.
Yet in both cases and many more besides them, it requires vast funding to ensure that these pro-Western and largely unpopular governments are able to continue. This can hardly be considered a partnership with Muslims but rather putting certain pro-Western leaders in place by force and removing opposition in the same way. Using Egypt where the speech was made as a further example, it is only by suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists that President Mubarak, backed by the US, has managed to survive.
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest represent the list of Muslim countries where the US is involved militarily. These can hardly be described as potential partnerships where force is being used to compel these countries to be “pro” American. Worse the US, for strategic geo-political reasons, cannot allow them to fall into the hands of governments whose ideology and approach may be anti-American. This leaves the US seeking partnership with those who they believe are friendly to America and ensuring, by force in these cases, that the opposition is stifled.
In addition whenever Muslim countries have put matters to the vote then it is the Islamic fundamentalists who seem to achieve the popular support. Here, which I don’t believe Obama has, a definite distinction has to be drawn between fundamentalist and extremist. Where the former believe in the strict tenets of their beliefs the latter appear to have a very secular goal which utilises religion as a tool, just like any other weapon in their arsenal, to achieve their goals.
It is those fundamentalists which Obama is missing in trying to convince Muslims that efforts to prop up unpopular governments in the Muslim world equates to meeting Muslims halfway. The Shah of Iran visited and revisited over and over again.
If the US wishes to meet the Muslim world with mutual respect and trust then it is required to allow Muslims to decide their future without attempting to force their hand as to whom they consider to be their leaders, the ideology they should adopt or any other preconditions for recognition. It means meeting them as they are not as the US would like them to be.
It means abandoning force in many Muslim countries and asking them to decide who comes to the table.
In essence this is a message to Muslims-in-power who are pro-American that the US is open for business and ready to take on Muslim partners in the fight against extremist Muslims. The problem in this approach is that rather than allowing Muslims to decide who they want and what is considered extreme is that you will be propping up one dictatorship after the next waiting for the inevitable revolution. You achieve neither the popular support nor any prospect of long-term stability.
Mutual trust and respect means accepting Muslims as they see themselves and not only those who agree with you or support you.
In essence and with a much nicer wrapping around it, it’s George Bush’s “either you are with us or against us”, revisited.
This will no doubt anger not only the extremists — as we are already seeing — but the fundamentalists who believe in Islam and its principles not as a means to power but as a way of life. Among this substantial minority there will be grave concern of an encroaching Western modernity brought to them by Western puppets. That leaves the moderates, who are the majority, who will want to see a lot more action in terms of policies than mere rhetoric. This is going to make Obama extremely vulnerable at home where concessions to those considered to be the enemy is going to take enormous persuasion. As we have already seen in terms of Obama’s approach to South America, Americans are singularly unimpressed with their president’s refusal to stand up to name-calling and abuse by Messrs Chavez and co.
The next priority listed was in settling the Israeli-Palestinian issue via the previously agreed road map.
In accordance with the speech Israel is to stop settlements, Palestinians are to renounce violence, recognise Israel and thereby bring about the two state solution. At present Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has not confirmed a two state solution and there is anger among Israelis about stopping the settlements. In addition Hamas does not and will not recognise Israel and considers the whole area as part of a bigger Arab structure rather than any two state solution.
Accordingly at this point in time the only party of the three who recognises the two state solution is Fatah. Unfortunately they are not even a majority among the Palestinians right now. This is a grave pity because personally I fully endorse and support the two state solution.
Unfortunately right now the road map seems to be pushing square pegs into round holes and that is going to cause even more anger and resentment in a very volatile region.
Similarly when we look at the question of nuclear proliferation. In terms of offering Iran limited peaceful nuclear capability Obama is neither achieving his goal of avoiding nukes nor slowing down the pace of the arms race in the region. It will simply give Iran a smokescreen of civil nuclear development to hide behind. A nuclear armed Iran presents a very clear and present danger to Israel and any Sunni majority countries whom Iran considers to be a threat.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad will not rest until he has a military nuclear capability as it projects power and avoids the threat of any invasion. The rest of the region won’t feel safe until they have it as well, if only to deter Iran.
We could be looking at a game of “have they” or “haven’t they” got it throughout the entire region. That coupled to governments threatening to pull out of partnerships unless they are allowed to have this capability.
In aggregate this speech may well occasion a geo-political nightmare for the US in the Middle East and beyond and while I hope that I’m a million miles off the money and President Obama’s courage ushers in a moderate and stable planet the chances are at best minimal.
Unfortunately ideals trample on reality which is crammed full of vested interests and where those belong to parties in positions of wealth or power and who are at risk of suffering substantial losses as a result of them, then there will invariably be a material attempt at removing the source of that threat.
Right now I believe that this speech, coming so soon after Obama’s inauguration, on its own has threatened more vested interest groups both domestically and across the world than JFK and Abraham Lincoln combined managed to achieved during their presidency.
Whatever else you may think of President Obama don’t ever doubt that this man has the courage of his convictions.
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
