While Obama has clearly distinguished himself from his predecessor, his address to the Islamic world should be met by Arab caution, writes Hassan Nafaa* The speech that US President Barack Obama delivered from Cairo University last week was not just an impassioned appeal to Arab and Muslim emotions and a declaration that US policies towards the Arab and Islamic worlds have changed. Every detail in that speech indicates that it was painstakingly prepared and subjected to intensive revisions before being set in the final version that Obama recited so elegantly from the large assembly hall in the oldest modern university in the region. It would be equally wrong to deal with the address as though it were a working plan or programme that could be implemented within a particular timeframe. The speech had a very clear and specific goal, which was essentially to delineate a new framework for US relations with the Islamic world that reflects a mentality radically different to that which had governed the US approach to this relationship in the past, especially in the Bush Jr era. It is useful to note, in this regard, that Obama made a point of addressing Muslims everywhere in the world, including in the US and other Western countries. In addition, his messages were aimed at all parties concerned with the issues of this region, whether Arabs or non-Arabs, Westerners or Easterners, Muslims, Christians or Jews. I was particularly impressed by how minutely balanced and delicately nuanced the speech was. So finely calibrated was it that it would have been very hard for anyone to issue a blanket rejection of his points or even to object to most of them on principle, regardless of the reservations one might have on certain details. I was also struck by the persuasive force of the speech, to the extent that it would have been difficult for anyone, no matter how strong their hostility to the US and its policies, to deny a salient fact: the US has undergone a major change, not only in its political rhetoric but also in the vision and very premises that govern the approach and decision-making processes of the new administration towards international issues, and issues of this region above all. Perceptions may differ on the quality, direction and scope of the change, but that there has been profound change is as clear as day. Before proceeding to how the Arab world should respond to the Obama phenomenon, I will first attempt to identify the features of this change according to my reading of the speech the US president delivered from Cairo University. THE NEW US VISION OF THE WORLD: The Obama speech reflects a vision of the world that is worlds removed from that of the Bush administration. Bush and his clique divided the world into two antithetical segments, one good and the other evil, and offered no middle ground or room to choose, their slogan being, "Whoever isn't with us is against us." The Obama vision is much more rational and equitable. It sees a world with many and diverse political forces, interests and ideologies and in which all parties have the right to advance their interests and defend their value systems, so long as their means of doing so do not encroach on the rights and interests of others. If this is the case, then the new US administration seems inclined to relinquish designs aimed at securing American global hegemony and to work to build a new multi-polar international order. It also rejects the concept of pre- emptive war and, more generally, recourse to military force unless absolutely necessary, and then only after all diplomatic means have failed, after consulting with other concerned parties, and without commandeering the international decision-making process. There are many passages in Obama's address that support this contention; too many to cite here. His vision of the world and the US relationship with it emanates from a humanitarian philosophy grounded in deep faith in the ability of mankind to turn the course of a history filled with warfare, strife and destruction towards a brighter future based on cooperation, mutual understanding and working for the good of all. THE NEW US VISION TOWARDS ISLAM: Obama dwelt at length on the greatness of Islam and its major contributions to human civilisation, many of which he enumerated. He stressed, too, that this religion has no relationship with the terrorism that some Muslims have perpetrated. At the same time, he observed that the West has a value system that differs in certain respects to the Islamic value system and that some parties had grossly exaggerated such differences in order to substantiate and fuel the notion of an inevitable clash of civilisations between Islam and the West. All possible measures must be taken to thwart such designs, he said. But Obama not only hoped to turn a new page in relations between the West and Islam, but also in the relations between all faiths and all human beings. And he appeared acutely aware of the magnitude of the obstacles to this task, for which reason he appealed to his audiences not to remain bogged down in the past or the present, but rather to look forward to the future. He said, "it is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward -- to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion: that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples; a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jewish. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilisation, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today." In the context of this vision of human diversity, Obama expressed his understanding for women who choose to wear the veil and he defended this right, so long as the decision to wear the veil emanates from the women's free choice. He also voiced his respect for the right of Muslims to perform the duty of charitable giving and vowed to reduce the legal obstacles that make it difficult for Muslims in the US to fulfil this obligation. To my knowledge, no other Western leader has ever before issued such a sincere and respectful understanding of Islam. It is a position that merits our greatest esteem. THE NEW APPROACH TO THE ISLAMIC WORLD: Obama confirmed in Cairo that his administration's approach to issues in the Islamic world would be based on openness to and dialogue with others, without exception, including those who oppose the US and its policies. The sole exceptions to this principle are Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and those allied with it. Here Obama drew the line, vowing to fight them until they are defeated on the grounds that their sole aim is to kill as many Americans as possible and even the Muslims who disagree with them. Otherwise, Obama reaffirmed his extension of the olive branch to Iran, not only saying that he was ready to have serious talks with Tehran but also acknowledging its right to possess nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unlike his predecessor, Obama did not brand Hamas as a terrorist organisation. On the contrary, he acknowledged that it represented a portion of the Palestinian people and therefore could be part of the solution. In so doing, Obama cracked open the door to the possibility of talks with Hamas at some point in the future. On Iraq, Obama confirmed his plan to withdraw US forces in accordance with a set timeframe. He stressed that the US has no designs on Iraq's mineral wealth and does not want to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq. At the same time, he reiterated the pledge to train Iraqi forces to the point that they would be able to defend their own country. Obama made no reference to the Lebanese crisis and Hizbullah, although one imagines that the spirit of his remarks on Iran and Hamas would also apply to Hizbullah. THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT: Obama made a deliberate distinction between the Palestinian and Arab dimensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Again he departed radically from his predecessors through his emphasis on the suffering of the Palestinian people and by clearly placing their cause in the context of the universal struggles against slavery, colonialism and injustice. He clearly gave priority to the Palestinian humanitarian dimension and pronounced some courageous positions; foremost was his adamant stance against Israeli settlement activity. In so doing, he signalled a turning point in Washington's growing indulgence of Israel on this issue. Throughout the eras of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, the official US position on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories was that they were illegitimate. With the arrival of Reagan to power in 1981, they were reduced to a mere "obstacle in the road to peace". Bush Jr went so far as to approve the expansion of existing settlements, even though he was the first US president to announce a "vision" of a two-state solution. In his declaration of his administration's stance on this issue Obama introduced some new phraseology. The US "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements", he said. While some might not regard this position as strong or radical enough to stimulate substantial progress in the peace process, I nevertheless believe it is quite courageous. It means that he insists upon a complete and immediate freeze to all settlement activity. He is fully aware that there are some very nasty forces in Israel that oppose him, but he also knows that freezing settlement activity is an essential condition to any meaningful resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which Obama wants to set into motion again as soon as possible. But Obama was not quite so explicit on other dimensions. In fact, I would describe some of his positions as constructively ambiguous and others as potentially dangerously ambiguous. His remarks on Jerusalem fall under the first heading. In referring to the Holy City as "a place for all the children of Abraham" he implicitly rejected the Israeli claim to Jerusalem as the undivided and eternal capital of Israel alone and signalled the possibility of US support for Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem within the framework of the pre-1967 borders. On the other hand, I would place his remarks on the Arab peace initiative in the category of potentially dangerous ambiguities. In describing this initiative as "an important beginning but not the end of [Arab] responsibilities" he seemed to imply that it was only a starting point for further negotiations and concessions. Similarly, his appeal to the Arabs to help the Palestinians and Israelis could be interpreted as a request to support Abbas over Hamas as well as a request that Arab countries normalise relations with Israel before Israel withdraws from all the territories it occupied in 1967. WHAT WE SHOULD HEAR: If I am correct in my interpretation, which could be a little precipitous and need revision on the basis of a second and even closer reading of his speech, I would urge the Arab world not to rush to any impulsive unconsidered decisions. Of course, it is important to realise that the Obama administration is totally different from the Bush administration and, thus, presents a vast horizon for constructive improvement in our relations with the US. However, it remains, per force, an administration committed to the promotion of US interests and it still believes whatever is in Israeli interests is in its interests. Until this administration arrives at a realisation that US and Israeli interests do not necessarily overlap, the horizon for healthy progress in its relations with us may prove a mirage. For this reason, our management of US-Arab relations will be much trickier with this administration and require constant vigilance and care. The Arab world would be well advised to mend all rifts with Hamas, Syria, Hizbullah and Iran first and develop a common vision on the nature of our relations with the US. Otherwise put, the Arab world should not let the US negotiate in its name with Iran. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
