Is It Possible to Start Over?

After centuries of iniquity, is it possible to start over? Can we delete history and start with a fresh slate? For as much as one wants to believe it, experience reminds us of how slowly offenses heal. In the oppressed, betrayed states, it is almost as if there has been some sort of genetic modification so that people are distrusting and don’t believe in promises. If, some day, that tendency can be overcome and people once again begin to believe, but then the disillusion relapses, it would be difficult to recuperate faith and optimism. He who is burned by milk doesn’t only blow on the curdle, as we say; he who is burned by milk sees a cow and cries, as they say in Argentina.

Despite this, we must recognize that hope is stubborn. Humanity has believed in change time and time again. Its conviction to transform and be transformed has allowed it to relieve enormous tragedies. “Fill the crater with bombs/And we will sing again/And we will plant again/Because we will never declare life defeated,” says an anonymous Vietnamese poem. And this is because life does not flourish in distrust; it becomes stagnant. It is undeniable that trenches fulfill a function, but one cannot live indefinitely in the trenches. As much fear as it causes to leave refuge, one has to dare to leave at ceasefire and face forward to embrace opportunity.

President Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Cairo on June 4th made me ask myself if humanity has currently found itself in one of those rare moments in history that deserves not only the benefit of doubt, but also decided support of an impulse that supports the will of this president, in particular, to correct the wrong course that we’ve been headed down for decades.

Among all past presidents of the United States, Barack Obama stands out not only because of his skin color, but also because of his life experience. This man has not only dealt with racial discrimination first hand, but he also knows what it’s like to live in the third world. Until his speech in Cairo, many of us had been observing him cautiously and quietly, deciding if we should give him a whole-hearted stamp of approval.

After that intervention, however, I, at the very least, do not have any doubt that Obama is betting on executing a serious change in the course of American foreign policy. It’s obvious that a speech is a speech, but it is also true that the way it is delivered and its context changes it, in my opinion. It is a manifest of luck of the Obama administration, not only about the Middle East, but also about the principles that Obama aspires to implement with regard to the United States’ relations with the rest of the world. If he is able to achieve it depends less on his internal enemies – at the moment, a minority in the House and Senate – and more on international leaders.

I want to highlight several components of his speech and show why we need to keep in mind the change in course he discussed. As is the case with many speeches, this one had many key components that couldn’t be missed by one who is familiar with the issues. And coming from a North American president, many of these affirmations denote a substantial change in focus and attitude toward the third world. Following, I will first indicate the context and transcribe the quotes that seemed important.

In the beginning, after referring to the centuries of tension and religious wars between the West and Islam, he says: “More recently, tension has been fed 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.”

About the United States: “Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.”

About interdependence between nations: “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.”

About Iraq: He cites Thomas Jefferson, who said, “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.” And he added, “Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.”

He reiterated collaboration with Israel, but added: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own…the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

About nuclear weapons: “We have reached a decisive point … I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

About democracy: “So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere…there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”

In conclusion, among other things, he said, “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.”

In all of my life, I have never heard a North American president abandon arrogance the way [Obama] did, admitting not only the sequels of colonialism but also the instrumentalization that the U.S., as well as the Soviet Union, made of Arabic countries and Africa. It is significant that he emphasized the fact that the United States rose up against an empire and even more so that he rejected the idea that one nation should rise above the rest, should decide who has nuclear arms and who does not, or impose a system of government. Iraq should be left to the Iraqis, he said, at the same time that he lamented the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.

His support and clarity around the Palestinian issue was meridional; he recognized the suffering of the Palestinians, actually called the occupation an “occupation,” and asked for cessation of assents and recognition of Palestine as its own state. In referring to violence, he did it by condoning its use by all sides under equal terms. With respect to his references to democracy, he was skillful at pointing out that aspirations for liberty, state rights, transparency and everything else are not North American values but rather the basic human rights of all.

His call toward the end to search for commonalities echoes his initial words, in which he asked for the opportunity for a new start, based on mutual interest and respect, that puts an end to distrust and discord.

It is evident that this speech provides for certain novel predicates that are not limited to the United States’ relations with the Arab world. Rather, it transcends that and presents a vision of a statesman that hopes for a role where the power of his country can develop into a factor for progress and conciliation within the new global context.

As I said in the beginning, it is difficult to overcome distrust. Suspicion of and hostility toward the United States is not a gratuitous invention. It is founded in numerous instances of abuse of power and violation of rights of states. But as citizens of this world, not of our fathers or grandfathers, we are obligated to consider history’s lesson: exceptional individuals are able to achieve what may appear impossible, for the good and the bad.

President Obama has four, maybe eight, years to demonstrate that the spirit of his speech bears fruit. The world that has suffered at the hands of the United States has two roads: rejection of Obama’s words to remain in the trenches, or acceptance of the challenge; not to drop one’s guard, but to rise to the challenge of President Obama’s agenda to enact concrete change, common concrete projects that implicate and alter the aggressive tradition of North American diplomacy. Even more than “respect” – a demand that in Nicaragua, recently, only hides the necessity for a party that assumes power with impunity to discredit democracy – a new vision by the United States of its own role could mean a more just, clean, equitable, and humane world for everyone. As Lenin said, “We should dream,” and I would add, give hope a shot.