The Danger of Obama

The Danger of Obama

Egypt dealt officially with Obama’s visit from two different perspectives. The first reflected the overwhelming happiness with the the American President’s choice of Egypt as the launching pad for a speech he wanted to direct to the Muslim world, and in this choice, found a potential opportunity to reconcile with the ruling regime. The second reflected fears of “some incident” that might disturb the purity of the visit and turn it from an opportunity into a setback for the regime that hurts it more than benefits it.

The first perspective expressed itself through a “state of emergency” or “general mobilization” aimed at improving the image of all that will be before the eyes of the important guest along his way, going to and from the places he is supposed to be visiting or passing by, in accordance with the agreed upon schedule.

Therefore, a major process was undertaken to wash the dome of the university and setting up the great hall of ceremonies, which is a magnificent architectural masterpiece, and it still a witness of the past. In addition, there are efforts to repave and clean the streets and roads surrounding the premises, and to prepare orchestras and the cavalry of the presidency of the Republic, in order to be fully ready to receive the young “emperor” at Koubbeh Palace.

There is no doubt that the images of Obama that the world’s satellite channels aired, whether during his official reception or during his visit to the mosque, the university, and the pyramids, were all beautiful and dignified, despite the artificial features and high cost, which is unjustifiable, and which reflects the influence of rule more than an effective system or uplifted society.

The second perspective expressed itself through the security arrangements and procedures and the regulations concerned with safeguarding and protecting the U.S. president and the places he will visit during his stay in Cairo and managing the affairs inside the University’s Great Hall before, during, and after his delivery of the long-awaited speech.

And here, it is noted that the tension and the fear of the unknown were in the hands of the concerned agencies, particularly the Egyptian presidency. This was reflected in a statement issued by Dr. Zakaria Azmi during a press conference where he expressed his hope that “this trip goes well”.

Any impartial observer will notice that the presence of America intervention was heavy in every detail of the visit and that the Egyptian regime was forced to make many concessions. Any other regime with confidence in itself and in its ability would never accept that.

That intervention was clearly involved in identifying the names of those invited to attend the speech and in selecting the journalists invited to attend a 45-minute meeting with Obama directly after the speech. It went so far as to assign the responsibility of managing the Hall of Ceremonies before, during, and after the speech completely to the American side. Those in attendance joked and made fun every time a professional tried to test the effectiveness of the audio equipment!

The Egyptian side was only entrusted with the responsibility of securing the surrounding areas and the entry and exit to and from.

It is also noted that the Egyptian security forces dealt with what was assigned to them with extreme rigor and “take all precautions” logic, regardless of whether it might damage the comfort and interests of the citizens.

Despite our complete understanding of the security concerns of such circumstances, some of the measures imposed were unjustified and reflected a situation of tension. This was clear once the guests exited the hall after Obama delivered his speech.

Many people, including the elderly and those in need of special care, felt that they were trapped, neglected, and had no value. Whatever the case, all Egyptians were happy when “the situation ended well” and nothing happened or disturbed the purity of that historical visit, but what next?

Our problem in Egypt, and perhaps the entire Arab world, is that we care about outer appearances and turn big events into a mere “zafa” (wedding procession), trying to bring out the most beautiful to make people talk. But we forget what is most important, “the following day.” Obama did not come on a tourist visit to see the pyramids, the presidential horse, or to show off his rhetorical talents and impress people with his charismatic personality. Rather, he came on a major task, aiming, in the beginning and the end, at bringing his country out of a deep crisis that seems to have no resolution.

Because we were preoccupied with the festive side of things, it appears that this is the most we can do to impact others. I now have serious doubts that official Egypt has realized the significance and implications of what is happening in the recesses of the American mind, which designed the visit to be a launching pad for a new stage, a stage with which I do not think we are prepared to deal.

It seems we have not taken notice that the United States sometimes manages politics in the “Hollywood” way, bedazzling and producing stars, and that at this stage, it is in the process of producing a series of new films starring the one and only Obama!

The speech Obama delivered at the University of Cairo not only bears his personal mark, but it is also a product of the American institutional system in its new democratic uniform during a stage of fierce crisis that it is seeking to get out of. There is no doubt that the new American administration realized two things of great importance. The first is that all the crises the of Middle East are interrelated and connected in a manner that prevents a solution of any crisis on an individual basis, unless there is a general perception for dealing with all of these crises through a “simple package of ideas.”

The second is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the right entrance through which to deal with these crises and it forms a laboratory out of which ideas will emerge to determine, in the end, the format and content of that desired package. As for Obama, the star, his charismatic personality ensured the necessary bedazzlement to convince the audience that America has changed and that it is able to produce a serious and meaningful new cinema, different from the cinema of violence and sex that characterized the previous stage.

I am not here commenting on Obama’s speech or analyzing his accuracy and the significance of what is at stake in the balance. That is for someone else to do. But I am here only to say that the vocabulary of his speech, and what is reflected in its precision, was subjected to a very meticulous pre-screening process.

The speech suggests that something big is being prepared through deliberate and careful steps. Perhaps we are on the threshold of a new American approach to the management of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the context of growing awareness of the fact that the overall issues and crises of the Middle East have the most direct impact on U.S. interests in this region.

The most important feature of the new U.S. strategy at this stage is a preference for diplomatic work, while emphasizing that this does not stem from a sense of vulnerability, but instead a desire to reorder securities and roles to help the United States extend new sources of power, while emphasizing that military options will be used only as a last resort.

This is a benign direction, in any case, to be welcomed. But the worst fear is that the Arab world, especially its moderate camp, is unprepared, not ready, and unqualified to deal with it and with the requirements of this stage.

My close reading of the process of conflict management in the region says that the Arab world is more skilled in the art of resistance and refusal than the art of negotiation and bargaining. When the confrontation intensifies the Arabs split into two sides: one of them prefers obedience and submissiveness, and the other is forced to refuse and to resist. And in both cases neither side offers unified leadership! In times of searching for solutions through diplomatic channels, often what splits the Arab world and disperses it into groups and parties, gives its opponents an opportunity to make great achievements.

I fear what would happen if Obama were able to form a united front under his leadership with major Western powers, Israel, and the axis of “Arab moderates” to negotiate with Iran, as the leader of the camp of “extremists of the region,” and herein lies the danger of Obama. So, pay attention!