It comes as no surprise that little has been written in the Egyptian press about Obama's farewell speech at the UN General Assembly. Nonetheless, the speech is of vital importance to Egypt and the region, not for what it entails, but rather for what it missed. Wide is the gap between the speech delivered in Cairo on 4 June 2009 and Obama's speech in September 2016 at the UN. Today, it is obvious that Obama had spoken too quickly and committed himself too prematurely in Cairo. Conveying then an ambitious vision for reshaping America's relationship with the Muslim World built on trust and mutual understanding was music to our ears. Needless to dwell on the turmoil the region is living through and what transpired from the promised new American policy. Addressing world leaders in September, Obama avoided tackling problems of the US's own making. Instead he attempted to give a tour d'horizon of what he labelled as his achievements during his two-term presidency. He conveyed particularly that during his presidency the US acted as a rare superpower beyond narrow self interest, bounding its powers to international law and institutions in an attempt to foreground his multilateralism and engagement diplomacy. In fact, the three main topics Obama chose to address were void of any mention of Middle East conundrums: Multilateralism, the economy, and perceptions of one's identity. Obama defined multilateralism as his legacy as a president. Lauding international organisations, from the UN to NATO and the Bretton Woods institutions, he took pride in emphasising the need to mobilise allies and partners around collective action, as well as pursuing integration and coexistence between communities. Obama has always posited his strategy of engagement, cooperation and persuasion as the antithesis of his predecessor, George W Bush. Yet Obama's multilateralism is “àla carte”, according to his own terms and conditions. For Obama, multilateralism functions with the US in the lead. In this context, he bragged about the successes of his term by enumerating certain achievements, such as the return of the global economy to stability and growth, resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and establishing normal relations with Cuba. He said minor changes in the voting system in the IMF and World Bank were a success, making those institutions more representative, despite that China's voting power increased less than two per cent to reach four per cent, though China's economy furnishes almost 20 per cent of world GDP. US voting power did not budge from 17 per cent, which is equivalent to a sole veto in these two vital institutions. Obama devoted large parts of his speech to the economy and the right mix between policies of openness and globalisation and fairness and equality. Sounding rather like Bernie Sanders, Obama criticised the excesses of capitalism and the flaws of globalisation, and referred to the American paradigm he followed during his presidency as a model to be emulated by others. Obama could easily afford such a rhetoric at the UN to give a boost to Clinton domestically in the elections. It seems that the views and convictions of Sanders are becoming contagious. Not denying that open markets and capitalism have raised standards of living, Obama did not shy away from criticising harshly the flaws of globalization having weakened workers, suppressed their wages and undermined unions. The international community is not accustomed to hearing the US president speaking out against transnational corporations and their abuse of power, referring to those benefitting from globalisation as exploiters of workers. His quote on aiding developing countries was no less out of the ordinary, saying that only a fraction of what went into Iraq could have saved many developing countries, which would have been the smart thing to do. This is in drastic contrast to traditional and well-known US positions on financing for development in multilateral forums. He then clearly stated that just as his administration succeeded in combatting inequality and cutting in half the gap between the top one per cent of Americans, capturing more than 90 per cent of income growth, and the rest, he believed that advanced economies still needed to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe. He acknowledged that this is politically difficult, but asserted it is important to spend on foreign assistance and invest in emerging economies. It's not just the right thing to do, he said. It's the smart thing to do. One hazards to guess that if subjected to a lie detector test at that moment, the results would not have been in Obama's favour. Regarding the Middle East, Obama seemed to leave it completely open to the next administration, whether it will want to step up or step back, or continue to muddle through. President Obama refrained from insinuating where his preferences lie. To him, Middle East problems seem to be piling up around the identity crisis of its populations and the narrow mind set of its people in contrast to liberal societies. This he attributed to autocratic regimes and long prevalent leaders in the region. These leaders have extensively persecuted political opposition or demeaned other religions. Washing his hands of the entire turmoil in the Middle East, President Obama acknowledged that there was no answer to these problems of opposing social forcesin these societies. It all boils down to respect for the space of “the other”. There should be respect for peoples, their cultures, their own traditions, their religion, their ethnicity and their sense of nationhood. Preserving one's own identity should not entail demonising other groups or diminishing others. To the deep-rooted problems of religious fundamentalism, aggressive nationalism and crude populism in the region, President Obama contented himself with advancing ideal solutions — better integration and coexistence — which, in my view, attests to naivety. The issue he tackled the least in his speech was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. All he said is that the Palestinians should recognise the legitimacy of Israel, and Israel should not continue to occupy Palestinian land. Juxtaposing the obligations of each sides by no means insinuates that Obama is setting on par the Palestinians with the Israelis. Irrespective of the tensions between Obama and Netanyahu, it was Obama's administration that granted Israel an assistance package without equal in history, not even the Marshall Plan: $38 billion in military aid, over the next 10 years, of which there was no mention in his speech. The package will provide an average of $3.8 billion a year over the next decade to Israel. With such a deal the US has secured Israel, even if it thought of stepping back from the Middle East. Any hope of the Obama administration making a last ditch effort after the November elections to save the Middle East peace process vanished into thin air following Obama's speech at the UN and the assistance package to Israel. In addition, the administration will be very sensitive to any move in the “lame duck” period after the elections that would be unwelcome if Hillary Clinton wins. If at any point in time the US has seriously thought of stepping back from the Middle East, today US withdrawal becomes all the more remote in the light of the new US-Russian rivalry, as it means leaving the terrain open for Russia to step up. Today's Russia is no longer the weakened Russia of the 1990s. Leaving the region now means the spill over of civil wars to countries like Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and maybe even Egypt, or as far as Algeria. It can eventually destabilise Saudi Arabia. No US administration can afford losing Egypt or Saudi Arabia. The next administration can no longer afford muddling through in the region or put up partial solutions. The next US administration, whether Trump or Clinton, has to be decisive in its choice of action. Fighting the Islamic State group, as the two presidential candidates vow, is a necessary condition — though not sufficient — to restore stability in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains at the heart of the region's instability. The US battled against Al-Qaeda and thought by killing Bin Laden it had won the war against radical Islamism. This was utterly wrong as the demise of one Islamist group gives birth to another. From Al-Qaeda to Islamic State to Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar Al-Sham, the jihadist movement is self-generative, with no end in sight in the foreseeable future. Such groups are becoming stronger and more violent. Islamic State is certainly more vicious than Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nusra Front will be even fiercer. As long as the proxy wars continue between Iran and Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and as long as there is no solution in sight to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the world is not safe. The writer is a professor of practice and director of the Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Centre for American Studies and Research at the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the American University in Cairo.
