Why Don't Some Arabs Prefer Obama?

Why don’t some Arabs favor Obama?

Many people in the U.S. are surprised that some Arabs reportedly don’t favor the U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Americans, along with the rest of the world, want to turn the page on the right-wing political trend that developed during the eight year rule of the republican administration headed by George Bush; a trend that assumed U.S. interests are also the interests of the world and that tried to establish a standard in international relations in which the U.S. doesn’t not ask anyone for a second opinion.

Thus the majority of Americans and the world are hoping for anything but Bush winning a third term in the form of Republican John McCain, who is an extension of Bush. U.S. politics will be freed from this right-wing trend and Bush’s senseless wars and human rights violations, as the majority prefer an Obama victory.

So it is to the surprise of many that some Arabs don’t prefer Obama for U.S. president despite being the group most affected by Bush’s policies and deception, specifically his vision (a lie) of creating a Palestinian state and specially seeing how Obama objects to an attack campaign of U.S. enemies of Arabs and Muslims groups supporting Israel.

A dissatisfaction with Obama is illustrated by a number of phenomena and occasions. Among them, for example, is the discussion in a single Gulf newspaper with a large international audience of the book “Obama Nation” by an America writer Jerome Corsi. Corsi’s book claims that what he calls “the Islamic roots of Obama” disqualifies him from leading America.

The newspaper created feelings of dissatisfaction with Obama, as it did not distinguish its own (hidden) opinion from that presented in the book. Thus, the discussion appeared to support the book’s goal, and Arab papers participated in announcing Obama’s incompetence to its readers?! Nevertheless, the paper’s readers do not have a vote in the American elections!

It is clear that Jerome Corsi issued his book “Ineligible For Leadership” before the presidential elections in 2004 in order to undermine Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry lost. Bush won.

There is also a sense of dissatisfaction in another major Arab country as well, not only due to Obama’s remarks about democracy and reform in the region, but because of his refusal to visit Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two biggest U.S. allies in the region, during his foreign tour last July.

There are may explanations for this situation. Among them is that the continuation of Bush (McCain’s victory) means a continuation of the administration’s pretense of spreading democracy and reform for four more years.

After winning his party’s nomination last June, Obama announced that he would not follow the policy of Bush and the Republicans, a policy that relies the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East.

Obama also expressed his readiness to open a new dialogue with Iran and Syria. A dialogue that would open the door for new possibilities, further strengthening the Iranian influence and ending the hostile U.S. policy toward Iran, and perhaps guarding of the Israeli-Syrian peace agreement, mediated by Turkey. But this may expose the policies pursued by Arab countries, uncovering their hostility toward Iran.

American politicians are not ashamed of the performance reviews of their policies, which they change in order to achieve U.S. interests. They are frank with the people about the reasons for the change because it serves as a source of legitimacy. Changes of the followed create a problem for its followers. The sound alternative for a solution is preparing for all possibilities.

In the latest issue of the magazine Le Monde Diplomatique, the editor-in-chief of the Arabic edition Samir Al-Attiyah wrote: “the regional position of both Egypt and Saudi Arabic is weak, and until now there are no signs that a role will be established for them if Obama wins.” This situation inspires optimism in Egypt and Saudi Arabic…but what can be done?

There is nothing specific according to which to advise these two countries. But what can be said is that the U.S. administration is becoming unable, in light of the circumstances of the presidential elections, to make important decisions. This is creating an exceptional situation for countries that are willing to make a move, international and regionally, in order to obtain papers that will increase their chances in the next game.

There are many examples of countries that are taking advantage of this extraordinary situation. France, for example, pursued the idea of establishing a Mediterranean Union, although the idea completely lacks content. The European Union boldly entered into a plan for talks with Iran, hoping to remove the new phantom war in the Middle East. Qatar took up producing the Doha Agreement with Iran and Syria in order to settle the Lebanese crisis. Turkey sponsored indirect negotiations between Israel and Syria, playing the role of mediator between Washington and Tehran. Syria established a diplomatic relationship with Lebanon.

There are many examples of countries that are preparing for a new phase and that have moved in directions that best serve their interests and strengthen their position, while other countries continue to adopt attitudes and policies that are likely to change!