Analyzing Obama's Speech
Published in Al Rafidayn
(Iraq) on 8 June 2009
by Zia Jassani (link to original)
In what looks like a universal road map, the American President Barack Hussein Obama presented his view of an important aspect of international conflicts, which nowadays is causing outcry around the globe. In his lengthy speech aimed at the Arab and Muslim worlds from Cairo on Thursday of last week, the president summarized the crisis between the East and the West into four major issues: extremism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the nuclear issue, and democracy and human rights.
President Obama announced in all openness that his country bears no grudge against Islam, nor is it hostile to the Muslim world, but that it is extremism and extremism alone that has brought the relations between America and the Muslim world to the point of tension mixed with hatred and mistrust. Regarding this specific issue, he has shown goodwill toward the East Muslims and, while courting the love of the Muslims, he reinforced this with new positions on the Palestinian issue when he called on Israel to end settlement activities, to recognize Palestinians' right to exist and to have a lasting Palestinian state.
As for the nuclear issue, the man has recognized, and this in public, the right of countries to possess peaceful nuclear technology and, to make things clearer, he made specific mention of this right for Iran. And to keep the issue away from political ambiguity, he has entrusted it to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as subsequently to the technical authority responsible for examining intent and for distinguishing between what is peaceful and what is not.
In the face of this new trend in international policy, which was outlined by the U.S. president's speech, the period following the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York is nearing its end, with the speech laying the foundation for a new era, or a "new beginning," in the own words of the president, in which concerted efforts are made to confront extremism and to put an end to violence. By this, the call for a partnership and interest-based relations made by the orator on the podium of Cairo University, a call laying the foundation for a new Middle East, has put the governments and political forces of the Muslim world before clear and specific options. This gave the speech another side, which Middle East political forces and organizations will inevitably have to read and whose meanings and ensuing obligations they will have to understand.
The question that faces observers and analysts is specifically about the areas of tension, not to say conflict and hatred, in the relations between the East and the West in general. And between the Arab and Islamic worlds, with the United States in particular, as Arab and Islamic governments and political forces are undisputedly divided as to their relations with America. Many of them hold close ties with America while other organizations keep up moderate relations mixed with some reservation, whereas still a few others adopt a position of breach and open hostility towards the greatest universal power.
Perhaps this geopolitical fact indicates the direction of the Cairo speech and the parties to which it is aimed. Assuming this is true, the solemn speech has been wrapped inside its content, which is a comprehensive political deal that strengthens moderate forces at the detriment of forces of radicalism and violent extremism. This is what explains the call of the American president for partnership and cooperation as an essential alternative to the conflict, as in this call is a hand that binds those of the moderate forces and extends to those of hateful and extremist forces.
In clearer terms, the issue of democracy and human rights has become a vital part of the reconciliation deal, with its merits covering all parties, as America's friends among the rulers of the Arab and Muslim worlds are not any less despotic than its enemies, just as the democracy and human rights predicament in the Muslim East is a major source of all types of violence. Our tyrant-infested East not only produces this, but also exports to the other world in the West, which enjoys the blessings of democracy.
President Obama announced in all openness that his country bears no grudge against Islam, nor is it hostile to the Muslim world, but that it is extremism and extremism alone that has brought the relations between America and the Muslim world to the point of tension mixed with hatred and mistrust. Regarding this specific issue, he has shown goodwill toward the East Muslims and, while courting the love of the Muslims, he reinforced this with new positions on the Palestinian issue when he called on Israel to end settlement activities, to recognize Palestinians' right to exist and to have a lasting Palestinian state.
As for the nuclear issue, the man has recognized, and this in public, the right of countries to possess peaceful nuclear technology and, to make things clearer, he made specific mention of this right for Iran. And to keep the issue away from political ambiguity, he has entrusted it to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as subsequently to the technical authority responsible for examining intent and for distinguishing between what is peaceful and what is not.
In the face of this new trend in international policy, which was outlined by the U.S. president's speech, the period following the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York is nearing its end, with the speech laying the foundation for a new era, or a "new beginning," in the own words of the president, in which concerted efforts are made to confront extremism and to put an end to violence. By this, the call for a partnership and interest-based relations made by the orator on the podium of Cairo University, a call laying the foundation for a new Middle East, has put the governments and political forces of the Muslim world before clear and specific options. This gave the speech another side, which Middle East political forces and organizations will inevitably have to read and whose meanings and ensuing obligations they will have to understand.
The question that faces observers and analysts is specifically about the areas of tension, not to say conflict and hatred, in the relations between the East and the West in general. And between the Arab and Islamic worlds, with the United States in particular, as Arab and Islamic governments and political forces are undisputedly divided as to their relations with America. Many of them hold close ties with America while other organizations keep up moderate relations mixed with some reservation, whereas still a few others adopt a position of breach and open hostility towards the greatest universal power.
Perhaps this geopolitical fact indicates the direction of the Cairo speech and the parties to which it is aimed. Assuming this is true, the solemn speech has been wrapped inside its content, which is a comprehensive political deal that strengthens moderate forces at the detriment of forces of radicalism and violent extremism. This is what explains the call of the American president for partnership and cooperation as an essential alternative to the conflict, as in this call is a hand that binds those of the moderate forces and extends to those of hateful and extremist forces.
In clearer terms, the issue of democracy and human rights has become a vital part of the reconciliation deal, with its merits covering all parties, as America's friends among the rulers of the Arab and Muslim worlds are not any less despotic than its enemies, just as the democracy and human rights predicament in the Muslim East is a major source of all types of violence. Our tyrant-infested East not only produces this, but also exports to the other world in the West, which enjoys the blessings of democracy.
Previous article![]( "Is the 9/11 Era Over?")
