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.

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

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share