The Daily Star , Saturday 13th June, 2009
Serajul Islam
A joke from the Bush-Blair era went like this: on the sidelines of a G8 Summit, the two buddies were laughing over a joke when Condoleezza Rice walked in and asked them what they were laughing about. Bush replied that they were discussing the Third World War that would kill a billion Muslims and a dentist. A surprised Rice asked “why one dentist?” An amused Bush turned to Blair and said, “See I told you no one cares about the Muslims.”
President Barak Obama's epoch-making speech at Cairo University on June 4th was significant for many of the things he said but it was most significant because he was able to convey to the Muslims that he cared for them. He dug into history of the monolithic religions; into his own past and from these he brought out substance intended to rebuild the bridges with the Muslim world that his predecessor had so insensitively tried to destroy. He said that the three monolithic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam reject the killing of innocent men, women and children and concluded that the fight against extremism and violence should be a common cause of the followers of these three great faiths. He has rationally tried to bind the followers of these three religions against terror and violence worldwide, sidetracking Bush's War on Terror that, in a moment of candor, he had called a Crusade.
Obama was at his eloquent best, a model of composure and sincerity, as he delivered his speech from the podium of Cairo University with the world eagerly watching him with very high expectations. Although the speech was heralded as one intended to reach out to the Muslims, it had in it almost all the issues that divide nations in the contemporary world. He placed extremism and violence as the first of these divisive issues and then proceeded with the Palestinian problem; the rights and responsibilities of nuclear states; challenges to democracy; religious freedom in the contemporary world; women's rights and concluded with economic development and opportunity. Quite understandably, he did not reach into much depth with these issues as those looking into these would have liked. Perhaps this was also not intended for he wanted the world, particularly the Muslim world, to understand that what his predecessor represented in foreign affairs was a minority view in his country and that he was appearing before the Muslim world with a view of the majority of US citizens. He drew a parallel with Al Qaeda and Islam, concluding that Al Qaeda likewise does not represent the majority view of the Muslim world and that the two vast majorities together should be bonded by history and religion in the common pursuit for peace.
Within these parameters, he has set very clear directions for his administration's change of course in foreign policy. He said that US troops from Iraq would be home by 2012. In Afghanistan, the US is not seeking a base and that US will lead a coalition of 46 countries there to complete the objective that his predecessor had started. He clearly identified the Al Qaeda as evil as forcefully as his predecessor but refrained from calling them Islamic terrorist. He acknowledged the ability of Al Qaeda for terrorism and violence worldwide but concluded that the best way to deal with them is to isolate them from the rest of the Muslim world, acknowledging Islam as a religion of peace. He identified Afghanistan and Pakistan as the new frontier for fighting Al Qaeda but asserted that the way to end Al Qaeda and their supporters the Taliban would be to strengthen the governments and the conditions of the people there to help them in turn to defeat the forces of terror.
President Obama clearly understood the importance of the Palestinian issue as a key one of discontent in the Muslim worlds that both Al Qaeda and absolute monarchs and dictators have exploited. He said that the Palestinian issue should be resolved by the two-state policy where an independent Israel and an independent Palestine would be able to co-exist. He called on Hamas to end their violence against Israel while asking Israel unequivocally to end settlements that is a major element of Palestinian discontent. He called US-Israel relations as “unbreakable.” In acknowledging the need to settle the Palestinian problem, he has also sought to neutralize a fertile recruitment ground for Al Qaeda.
He also moved away from his predecessor in explaining that while the US foreign policy supports democratic changes worldwide, such changes can come only by internal efforts and not through regime change with outside assistance. He thus gave not just Iran a clear signal that US has no intention of interfering with their internal affairs; it has also resonated likewise in other Muslim countries, particularly in the Arab world. To Iran, Obama also reaffirmed a long standing US policy that all countries have the right to peaceful nuclear power if it complies with responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Reaction to the speech in the Arab world has been positive. Newspapers and TV channels welcomed the speech for the positive tone on Islam. Al Jazeera on its website covered the speech with caption reading “America is not at odds with Islam.” The Palestinian Authority called it a “new beginning.” Elsewhere, Muslims felt that in 55 minutes Obama has wiped out 8 years of Bush that would bring US closer to them. Hamas, in contrast, considered the speech a “palpable” change and added that it has many contradictions.
Not surprisingly, the speech has been criticized the most by neo-conservatives of the Republican Party and the Israeli lobby in the United States. They took the line that it has been improper for a US President to criticize his predecessor on foreign soil and to make an “apology speech” to the Muslims. They would have liked President Obama to criticize the dictators and monarchs and their un-democratic ways to take the heat off Israel. One influential Republican, Senator Lugar, also a member of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, however, termed the speech as a “signal achievement” and dismissed it as too apologetic. However, he doubted how much impact the speech would have on the ME peace process or hasten the creation of a Palestinian state.
The road ahead for Obama's pursuit for peace will be a tough one. In Israel, a right wing Prime Minister is in power and President Obama can only push him to a point and not beyond. He must work with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other parties in Israel to convince them that unless they give the Palestinians their rights, they cannot achieve the peace they are seeking. It is however encouraging that President Obama has focused on the Palestinian issue at the beginning of his first term while his two predecessors did so towards the end of their respective tenure. Time would thus be on his side in working for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian issue.
Obama will also have a tough time in the days ahead balancing US's relations with the different and contrasting governments in the Middle East where there are conservative monarchies (Saudi Arabia and others); military leader (Egypt); clerical regime (Iran), and secular one (Syria). Equally difficult for him will be dealing with rise of political Islam in the Muslim countries. Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda and Taliban are resurgent again, will also test his skills to the fullest.
The tough road ahead notwithstanding, the merit of the Cairo speech does not need to be overemphasized if one just forgets Obama for a brief moment and goes back to the days of the Bush presidency. The Bush-Blair joke about the Muslims and the dentist had a dangerous underpinning; the two friends had set the world on course towards a Third World War; a war that Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe could have been doomsday. That prospect has been put into the cold storage of history with a bonus to boot; President Obama has given everyone the hope of a new world order and he has the power, well-earned respect and time to push for it.
The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to Japan and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, Dhaka.
No comments:
Post a Comment