An Incomplete Speech

Although it is almost superfluous to praise Barack Obama for the elegance of his appearance: a speech like his most recent one in Cairo will not be repeated anytime in the near future. In his speech, he stroke the perfect note that any American president after George W. Bush’s expeditions should assume when speaking to the Muslim world. At the same time, he bowed just deep enough to still ensure the backing of the majority of Americans. He was charming, frank, and precise. He avoided diplomatic phrases that he could have also used in Brussels or Washington. The erupting applause in the University of Cairo for the flawless appearance was well deserved.

What about the content, however? When deducting the dazzling outside, one can clearly detect that Barack Obama was strong at answering the weak questions about the Western relationship with the Muslim world. His appearance was much weaker, however, when asked more difficult questions concerning the conflicts in the Middle East.

Cairo was a home game for Barack Hussein Obama. He was able to nonchalantly point out his ancestors in Kenya and his personal encounter as an Afro-American Christian with Islam, just to emphasize a bit coquettishly at the end that his own story was not that important after all. He praised Islam as great civilization, as a part of America’s history. He reminded everyone that Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States of America in 1777. And he candidly and believably made it clear that he was seeking a new beginning in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Obama hit the right note when he addressed women’s rights and the important contribution of women to the development of Muslim countries. He did not lecture as a Western “know-it-all,” but rather combined the acknowledgment of achievements with a well-dosed emphasis on the deficits in Islamic countries. He argued likewise in the case of religious freedom. When he began speaking about the challenges of a democratic order in Middle East, he rightly stated that no country should force its social system upon another–-only to assert that in most Islamic countries, the majority of the population wished for democratic conditions and a respect for human rights. He has a point there.

What one Arab or another Afghan might have missed in Obama’s speech were clear words of regret about the abused democracy agenda during the Bush years, about the war in Iraq, the wrong operations in Afghanistan, and the destruction of American ideals in Bagram and Guantanamo. But the absence of these words might also be related to the overall weakness of his speech. With hard questions about war and peace, and the existence or non-existence of entire nations, Obama lagged behind all possibilities.

Example Afghanistan: Obama did not mention anything that would raise hopes for a change of American policies. Not one word hinted at the revision of the unfortunately still military-based strategy or at the hindsight that the Taliban in the Pashtun parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan are militarily invincible.

Example Iraq: Once more, Obama explained his strategy of gradual withdrawal, but omitted any words of contriteness about the many mistakes in the years since 2003; words that would have made many friends in Iraq.

Example nuclear weapons in the Middle East: Obama discussed Iran, but left an important reason for the nuclear race in the region unmentioned. He did not clearly refer to Israel’s nuclear weapons. On the other, he expressed the conviction that no state should be allowed to determine who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot. He underlined that these questions would be regulated by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and by its surveillance through the international community.

Finally, the example of Israel and Palestine, which is probably the most important point for most Muslims in the Middle East: Barack Obama only took this issue half way. He emphasized how important it is for both Israelis and Palestinians to mutually accept each other’s right for existence. However, he did not strongly press for a rapid creation of a Palestinian State. He called on all Israelis to put a freeze on their settlement expansion, but not to tear down those settlements that already prevent the foundation of a viable Palestinian State. A breakthrough in the relations between Israelis and Palestinians, and between America and the Muslim word, would require going all the way, however.

Last but not least, one point was missing altogether: When Barack Obama spoke, members of parliament of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were sitting in the audience as well. The Palestinian branch of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is the Hamas, the very party that won the Palestinian Parliament elections in 2006 and was subsequently boycotted by the United States and witnessed by a surprisingly uncritical Europe. Back then, the Western push for more democracy in the Middle East emerged as two-faced and insincere. This shortsighted boycott of Hamas was one of the reasons for the war in the Gaza Strip at the beginning of this year. Obama should have resolved this issue in Cairo. Nobody is asking the U.S. president to meet with members of the Hamas party, but to recognize them as players in the Middle East is overdue.

This upcoming week, however, Barack Obama will already have another opportunity to formulate an American answer to the new-–if certainly unpleasant–realities in the region. In the election in Lebanon this Sunday, the Islamist Hezbollah and its allies have good chances to win. Consequently, they could take over the government of Lebanon, which could then urge Obama and the Western world to consider whether the Islamists in the Middle East can really only be treated with ostracism and boycott.