Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Obama Appeals to Muslim World for “New Beginning”

In his speech in Cairo, President Barack Obama extended a hand to the world’s 1.5 bil lion Muslims, and addressed nearly all of the issues that divide the United States and the Islamic world.

Print Friendly

In what was perhaps the most widely anticipated speech delivered by a U.S. president abroad in recent memory, on June 4 President Barack Obama extended a hand to the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims, receiving repeated applause and a standing ovation from the audience at Cairo University.

Directed at all Muslims across the globe, the 55-minute speech laid out Obama’s desire for a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

Short on specific policy prescriptions, Obama’s speech nonetheless covered virtually all of the issues and sources of tension that have divided the United States from the Islamic world and fueled anti-western Muslim extremism.

“The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars,” he said. “More recently, tension has been fueled by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

The resulting “cycle of suspicion and discord must end,” he declared in a speech that was garnished with Arabic greetings, verses from the Koran and other religious texts, and a recounting of his own experiences with Islam—his Kenyan father is from a Muslim family; he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation; and his connection with the Muslim-American community.

“So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed,” he said. “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.”

Obama’s speech was the highlight of a four-day trip that began on June 3 in Saudi Arabia, where he met with King Abdullah, and ended June 5 in Europe, at the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald and the beaches of Normandy for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings.

Obama divided his speech into sections, addressing “violent extremism”; the Israeli-Arab conflict; nuclear weapons and Iran; democracy; religious freedom; women’s rights; and “development and opportunity,” each in turn.

On “violent extremism”—Obama dropped George W. Bush’s use of the phrase “global war on terror” immediately after taking office—he pledged to confront those “who pose a grave threat to our security— because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

Obama called the actions of Al Qaeda and its affiliates “irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. … The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.”

On Afghanistan, which he called a “war of necessity” after the 9/11 attacks, Obama pledged increased aid for Afghans and neighboring Pakistan, and said the United States would stay until “there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.”

On Iraq, which he called a “war of choice,” Obama said the United States “has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future—and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.” The comment was seen as a reinforcement of Obama’s pledged 2010 withdrawal of combat troops from the country.

At the same time, he stressed that Washington had no intention of retaining military bases in either country.

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Obama said both parties’ goals of stability, prosperity, and statehood were “legitimate aspirations.”

But Obama seemed to acknowledge the imbalance in those visions: the Jewish side has already a state—but for Palestinians, statehood remains unrealized.

“Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s,” Obama said, making a rare—for a U.S. politician—reference to the as-yet unrealized state, rather than to the more common and politically safe reference to the “Palestinian people.”

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” he said. “This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he declared in a passage that gained the most repeated applause of the speech.

With respect to nuclear weapons and Iran, he acknowledged a “tumultuous history” between the United States and Tehran, including Washington’s role in the “overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.”

He stressed that Washington was “willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region down a hugely dangerous path.”

Obama also recognized that “no single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons” and reaffirmed his administration’s “commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

On democracy, Obama placed his emphasis on respect for human rights and dignity, rather than elections. “[E]lections alone do not make democracy,” he said, stressing the importance of minority rights, rule of law, transparency, and basic freedoms. “Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq,” he declared. “So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”

“[H]uman history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests,” he said at another point in the speech. “Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.”

Arab media and public opinion expert Marc Lynch wrote on his Foreign Policy blog that the speech struck him “as a thoughtful reflection and invitation to conversation, with some important nuance which might easily be missed.”

“This wasn’t a one-off presidential speech,” he wrote, noting that a television interview with an Arab station early in his presidency, a speech before the Turkish Parliament, a New Year’s message to Iranians, and early and robust efforts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “set the stage.”

Ali Gharib and Jim Lobe write for the Inter Press Service and are regular contributors to PRA’s Right Web, http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org. You can find Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share