Parsing Obama in Cairo

Obama recently fulfilled a campaign promise to deliver a speech from a the capital city of a Muslim country with what some consider a ground-breaking speech in Cairo, Egypt (full transcript (Miami Herald)). It’s been a few weeks and already his masterful oratory has been credited with influencing the election in Lebanon, though it hardly can be blamed for what happened in Iran (or the rightward swing in Europe, for that matter).

The speech was a masterpiece, to be sure, though reading it surely leaves less of an awestruck impression than hearing it, where one is subject to the charm Obama exudes when he has good material. For example, I can only imagine how this sounded when spoken aloud:

“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. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.”

I’m sure Obamamaniacs got chills.

Reading Carefully

That this speech is being lauded throughout the media spectrum is less an indication of how damned good it was and more an indication of just how low the bar is. A member of the Palestinian parliament, Barghouti, said that it was “the best speech by an American president about the Middle East”. That may very well be—and it’s certainly the best in eight years—but, though it changed the tone from one of outright hostility, it still didn’t change the tone as much as necessary for it to actually count as having changed anything significant. There is no indication that Middle Eastern countries can expect to be considered equal partners with the U.S., even—or especially—on issues affecting their own region.

Ted Rall: Be Patient with ObamaOn the surface, Obama’s words and delivery are music to ears all-too-accustomed to the far less dulcet tones of poorly-veiled American threats and false bravado. However, a well-trained ear will hear a duplicitous retelling of the history of the region from the point-of-view of a uninvolved bystander, as if America only looked on helplessly as, over the years, the victimization of the Muslim world just happened by magic.[1] The article, Smile on the Face of the Tiger by John Pilger (Antiwar.com), encapsulates this impression neatly, in writing that “[…] Obama spoke in Cairo as if his and previous White House administrations were neutral, almost divine brokers of peace, instead of rapacious backers and suppliers of the invader (along with Britain).”

As with all official statements, it is best to wait to see what actually happens rather than to start handing out cigars merely for what has been said. At the very least, one should pull oneself together and concentrate on what has actually been said—and the content of speeches like this are carefully constructed and vetted—rather than reading too much into it and believing that which you are meant to hear, but which can be plausibly denied when push comes to shove. Obama’s speech and the attitude it represents neatly bundles the animosity between Islam and the West and presents it as misunderstanding on the part of Muslims, who are perhaps confused by the complexities of the bright future offered by the modern, western world. Read the speech carefully to see how easily even the vaunted multi-cultural Barack Obama is seduced by the Orientalist attitude.

Bad Behavior, But Whose?

For example, a careful reading of the speech reveals that Obama at no point apologized for America’s behavior, as claimed by some of his more vociferous detractors in the American mainstream media. At the very most, he dared explicitly name some policies that are universally viewed as detrimental to a partnership with the Middle East and pledged to work to change them. That is not an apology, but rather diplomacy. A more moral approach would have been to admit to, then apologize for, American atrocities, arguably building a much more solid base of support, in the Middle East if not in the United States. It is, after all, what the U.S. demands of other countries all the time (e.g. most recently by the Secretary of State of the U.S., as described in Hillary Clinton demands China investigate and disclose its past abuses by Glenn Greenwald (Slate)[2]). It would not have been viewed as a sign of weakness by anyone other than hawkish American (and probably Israeli) blowhards who think a bared fist is the best response to everything.

To appease those hawks, Obama took the Muslim world to task for their own crude misrepresentation of the enemy when he said that “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire” (again, that regretful and disappointing lack of comprehension of the nuance of American policy on the part of the Muslim world). Unfortunately, his justification for this statement—at least in the speech—amounts to “because I say we are not”. Simply re-iterating the founding principles of America does not prove that America actually stands by them, especially when American foreign policy has studiously ignored or trampled on them countless times. It is perfectly possible for America to be “one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known” while also being one of the most bloodthirsty empires that the world has ever known. Rome and Alexandria both contributed mightily to world culture and learning and neither is remembered much for its contributions to human rights.

Israel and Palestine

In the case of Israel and Palestine, the U.S. role in actively resisting peace was not addressed. Obama said that, going forward, the situation must be resolved with a two-state solution, but neither mentioned nor apologized for his predecessors having stood in the way of exactly that for the last several decades. He decried the settlements and called for an immediate stop, but did not mention what he thought should happen to the numerous and widespread illegal settlements already in place. For those with weak memories, Bush was also against the settlements—at least in stated policy—and at least one settlement was dismantled under his watch. This is not new stuff. For a more detailed analysis, see the article, What Obama Didn’t Say in His Cairo Address Speaks Volumes About His Mideast Policy by Noam Chomsky (AlterNet).

Obama did declare “America’s strong bonds with Israel […] unbreakable”, basically telling the Palestinians that their negotiations will continue to be against not only Israel, but also the U.S. In other words, work around that little hindrance if you can, because it will not be removed at any time in the near future. He finished strongly, though, by declaring:

“At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s.”

That minor concession, combined with an explicit acknowledgement of Hamas[3] will, in all likelihood, remain something the Obama administration said rather than something the Obama administration did. The influence peddlers are already shambling forth to quash even the idea that Israel could possibly concede anything. Or, as stated in the article, Obama in Cairo: Words, Words, Words by Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com),

“[…] I cannot see how Congress – which is, as Pat Buchanan quite accurately put it, ‘Israeli-occupied territory’ – is going to sit still for it. AIPAC’s gears are already turning, and the propaganda machine is slated to go full blast. What’s significant, however, is that, for the first time in a very long time, the Lobby faces a formidable opponent: a popular American President who speaks with clarity and conviction.”

It’s possible that the sheer power of Obama’s charisma will be enough to break the back of AIPAC, but it’s unlikely that this will even be necessary. Obama’s requirements of Israel are a political expediency that will garner him points today only to be forgotten in a swamp of negotiations stretched over the next several years. In typical style, Obama himself said that he would “personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires”. He promises neither a result nor a deadline—he just implies it; he promises patience and tenacity, which is good, but not as strong as it sounds.

Middle Eastern Dictatorships

On the subject of democracy elsewhere in the Middle East, Obama was noticeably silent. Though the editorial, The Cairo Speech (New York Times), credits him with having addressed the issue obliquely—when “he said that governments must maintain power ‘through consent, not coercion; and that ‘elections alone do not make true democracy’”—then hoping that he raised the issue of democracy in private with the notoriously autocratic Mubarak of Egypt and Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Such hopes are extremely tenuous and not really bloody likely. Both countries have been, are and will continue to be America’s closest Arab and Muslim allies; Obama is not likely to see the political expediency of promoting democracy in those countries when it never fit into America’s agenda before. Obama’s not a boat-rocker in that regard. Those waiting for him to promote democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia—and to hell with the consequences for U.S. influence in region—are advised not to hold their breaths.

Now that he’s president, he’s toned the fiery rhetoric that got him noticed as a senator and elected to the presidency down considerably. As detailed in the article, How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East by Stephen Zunes (Antiwar.com), the Obama of 2002 drew logical conclusions about “our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians” whose cruel and self-destructive policies were breeding grounds for dissatisfaction and terrorism. The vestiges of this attitude were evident in his failure to “offer visual displays of affection, as is typical during such visits to leaders in that region”. That can’t really be considered a condemnation except by his most loyal supporters.

When interviewed by the BBC just before his trip, Obama refused to even characterize Mubarak’s rule as authoritarian. Whereas we could always fool ourselves into thinking that Bush didn’t understand such questions, didn’t know who Mubarak was—or much at all about Egypt’s history or geographical location—Obama is too clever by far to be given the same pass. He was elected in good part for his brains and it’s on record that he knows exactly who and what Mubarak is. He just doesn’t deem it useful to do anything about it just now, sacrificing principle to politics, as every president before him has done (barring perhaps Carter, who brokered peace between Egypt and Israel). And, while Obama may be 100% correct, he was also elected because of a professed attachment to that most archaic of concepts: principles. And so it goes, with yet another big-talking, fiery politician subsumed into the morass of American policy. He doesn’t rock boats, this one. Egypt will continue to suppress actual political choice within its borders and the U.S. will continue to deliver millions in aid and weaponry.

Softer than Expected

In the comments to a 3QuarksDaily article, a defender of Obama, (Elatia Harris) (3QuarksDaily), cried that it was unfair to take Obama to task for following precedent set by those before him,

“Obama would not, as president, spearhead efforts to take Cheney & Co. to The Hague, he is not making an outspoken point of utterly separating his presidency from the one that came directly before it. (Not even Gerald Ford spoke in such a way as to calumniate Richard Nixon.) This is a point of highest-level diplomacy. While it deprives some of us of some satisfactions, its aim is to restore the prestige of our nation while entering – and creating – a new era. Not a thing that can be brought about at that high level by dancing on Bush’s grave.”

These types of contortions are only embarrassing for the contortionist, as they show an attitude toward the rule of law equal to that of a Fox News commentator who deemed “values […] fungible.” This failure to acknowledge, apologize for or punish wrongdoing is exactly the same lax attitude toward justice that Obama has shown at home. It is very easy for the biggest criminal in the room to say, “the past is the past” and “let’s just move on from here”. As the most powerful player, the U.S. is probably capable of forcing other nations to acknowledge this stance, but it doesn’t make it fair or particularly worthy of praise.

In response, there was the following comment

“When Obama repudiates Friedmanism, I’ll do a little jig. When he leads the way out of the fossil fuel tarpit (sic) (and all related wars, present and future), I’ll actually stand on the kitchen table and cheer. Promise.

“Until then, I’m certainly glad he’s better than GWB in every single way, but a smoother passage to the grim place we’ve all been heading, since Reagan (or Nixon?) anyway, is not my idea of a dream.

“It’s been so long since we’ve been close to being a civilization that we’ve forgotten what it feels like. It feels nothing like this.”

On the subject of actions vs. words and the inevitable comparisons to MLK and his famous “I have a dream” speech, the commenter pointed out that the difference was that MLK’s speech acted as a “commentary” on already visible change, whereas Obama’s speech is a hypothesis waiting for actual, physical evidence. That’s a “vast difference.”

The following is a slightly rewritten version of a comment I made at 3 Quarks Daily; it has been modified to better fit the flow of this article.

Essentially, “our standards/expectations are entirely too low” and this blanket refusal to indict the actions of those who have come before amounts to the “Omertà” of the Mafia. I think we all understand that “Omertà” is the way it has always been with American policy. On the scale of American presidents, Obama is considerably less abrasive than many others, especially his immediate predecessor. That he hasn’t had time to do much is also clear. The split in comment on the speech seems to be between the hopeful, who thought the speech grandiose, ground-breaking or the first step in turning some sort of corner just because there was a remarkable lack of condescension in it and those of us with a “wait and see” attitude.

The “wait and see-ers” are not arguing that Obama doesn’t mean what he said or that he will not try to do what he said. We are simply providing evidence justifying our attitude, namely, that we’ve heard much of this before. That’s right: go back and read Bush’s speeches. On the surface, he always sounded much more liberal in his state-of-the-union addresses than his policies bore out. The big difference is that some us happen to like Obama a whole lot more than we like(d) Bush, so we’re prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and are mystified when others withhold that benefit.

In one concrete example, the Bush administration also spoke out against the settlements and there was even an (unprecedented) evacuation of one on his watch. The two-state solution still failed to materialize in eight years and the stream of billions in military support were delivered unfailingly throughout. As well as with its unwavering financial, diplomatic and military support of Israel (which Obama explicitly promised in Cairo, again), the U.S. has also spent the last several decades actively torpedoing a two-state solution with its veto in the Security Council of the U.N.

Furthermore, Obama was careful to say that he wants a stop to further settlements without explaining his position on the massive settlements – and their surrounding walls – that already exist and that have taken over much of the useful formerly Palestinian land. Those that recall Obama’s speech to AIPAC during the campaign will remember that he is the first U.S. president to have promised Israel all of Jerusalem – undivided. This promise, should he attempt to keep it, puts a viable, peaceful solution completely out of the realm of possibility.

Hence the cautious attitude.

A History of Arrogance

As for defenses of Obama’s actions in Pakistan (in which he has promised billions in funding) he has to date only promised non-military aid, whereas he has already given the nod to stepped-up predator drone attacks on Pakistani soil. A few years ago, the US promised $400 million in food aid to North Korea in exchange for their cessation of uranium enrichment. The North Koreans have recently given up waiting with completely predictable consequences.

The speech is not atypical for an American president—delivered from on high and conceding only that which is relatively easy to concede—and avoiding that which would cost real political capital (that Bush had no flair for this means nothing other than that Bush was a terrible diplomat). Reserving the right to hunt those “determined to kill [Americans]” wherever in the world they may be is not a very limiting foreign policy and a nearly unchanged one from his predecessor’s.

Rejecting “the killing of innocent men, women and children” rings quite hollow when not accompanied by an admission of having done just that all over the world or, at the very least, recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Promising a “new age” and pledging to do everything different and better earns at best a “wait and see” attitude when unaccompanied by any form of apology or more explicit remorse.

One example is that, whereas he admitted to America “playing a role” in the overthrow of Mossadeqh in Iran, he glossed over the more recent history of having effectively fought a proxy war against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (massively supporting Iraq), which killed millions on both sides. Discussing nuclear ambitions without admitting that the U.S. has utterly failed to even think about honoring its commitments under the NPT is another. Using Dubai as an example of progress in the Muslim world takes exactly the narrow corporate-globalist view of progress that belies the more magnanimous views expressed earlier in the speech. Just saying that we are in a “new age” in a mellifluous voice does not make the standard American fear mantras—“When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean” could just as easily have been written by Bush’s handlers instead—any more palatable. Or perhaps it does, but it shouldn’t.

The tone of a parent admonishing a child for bad behavior continues throughout, reaching dizzying heights of arrogance with this beauty:

“Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

Does anyone on the entire continent of Asia believe this for even one second? How many innocents have been callously killed by America in the last century, the last decade, the last half year? Was it not Obama himself who authorized the drone attacks over the Pakistani border that took the lives of several innocents? What hubris to suggest that America is setting an example that the violent Muslim world could follow, could they only see fit to do so. Or, in the words of John Pilger,

“Orwell’s ghost again stirred when Obama denounced ‘violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan [who are] determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.’ America’s invasion and slaughter in these countries went unmentioned. It, too, is divine.”

Without an admission of guilt for the same crimes, Obama’s statements mean nothing; they do not lead to anywhere productive; they are just words to be enjoyed by supporters and forgotten by everyone. They are the stories that the powerful tell themselves to make themselves feel better…and which the powerless claim to believe if they know what’s good for them. John Witbeck (cited by John Pilger above) described it as follows:

“[…the] tired, morally bankrupt American mantra [which] essentially argues that only the rich, the strong, the oppressors, and the enforcers of injustice (notably the Americans and Israelis) have the right to use violence, while the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and the victims of oppression must…submit to their fate and accept whatever crumbs their betters may magnanimously deign suitable to let fall from their table.”

Al Qaeda’s Power?

That “Al Qaeda […] even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale” is not disputed. However, the size, breadth and power of Al Qaeda is. All indications are that Al Qaeda is on the run and that their ranks are mostly swollen by the fevered imaginings of Western intelligence—if it can be called that—which attributes every stray firecracker to evildoers intent on pillaging, raping and burning every last Caucasian soul as it seeks inexorably in establishing a global caliphate. It’s entirely possible that some people of Arab descent and devout Islamic faith fervently wish for this to happen but, as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

The tenuousness of the link between intent—“determination”, in the words of our president—and actual terror is belied by the preponderance of terror being of the state kind exacted against Al Qaeda’s ostensible constituency. That this constant provoking of what is sold to us as mind-bogglingly dangerous hornet’s nest has elicited little to no reaction stands as the strongest proof that the threat of Al Qaeda is vastly overblown. Especially when compared to the threat posed to the planet by the unparalleled power of the U.S. military. And, of course, as intelligent as he is, Mr. Barack Obama knows that.

Obama builds on this platform of mendacity to claim that it is Al Qaeda’s “determin[ation] to kill as many Americans as they possibly can” that holds American troops overseas. His hands are tied because his “first duty as President [is] to protect the American people”. Does any other country garrison the planet in order to protect itself from sworn enemies half a planet away? The only way Obama’s argument holds up is if you forget that most of the 9-11 hijackers came from affluent, Western-educated backgrounds. You must believe that the same people living in dusty camps in the poorest country on Earth are the ones who perpetrated the attack on the WTC. They weren’t, though. Not by a long shot.

Obama conflates various historical data to paint the exact same picture Bush did. In one thing he is quite correct, American lives are in danger from Afghanistanis—but only because they are soldiers on foreign soil. The number of Americans killed by Al Qaeda would have stayed at just under the 3000 killed at the WTC if America had stayed out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. You want to save American lives, Obama? Stop attacking other innocent people with them (and, no, using predator drones instead is not better, at least not morally). While Obama says that it is “agonizing for America to lose our young men and women”, he doesn’t even mention what it must be like for other countries to lose one hundred- or one thousand-fold more of its citizens to ostensibly surgical, aerial carpet-bombing. Americans are excited to hear that Obama plans to “act boldly” whereas much of the rest of the world has learned to run for cover at those words.

Lying About Empire

And yet, with Obama spouting the same foolish simplifications as his predecessor, he is heralded as having giving a world-changing speech. It’s easy for him to lie when he is repeating the received opinion of American mythology—those aren’t considered by lies by anyone who matters. For example, he says “I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases”. This was swallowed wholesale despite flying in the face of the reality of 14 of America’s largest bases—as well as the largest embassy in the world—on Iraqi soil. He takes unflinching credit for “unequivocally prohibit[ing] the use of torture” despite the controversy raging around the horrors of the prison at Al Baghram. Americans may, in general, not know about this, but the Muslim world sure does. Obama and his handlers must have nearly unbounded faith in his charisma to let him approach the podium with chestnuts like,

“America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”

It was hard to hear what he said after that over the sound of Kissinger gut-laughing.

A similarly bizarre moment was when he proclaimed his dream of “creat[ing] a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.” Whatever the hell for? This type of non-sequitur sounds like the time Bush expressed a desire for Americans to walk on Mars in one of his SOTU speeches.

To be fair, the speech had some genuinely good moments:

“It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.”

…and a nicely balanced view on women’s rights…

“I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.”

Time Will Tell

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Right now, it seems that the difference is whether one believes in Obama or not. His dedication to law and order as president is considerably different than his that he espoused while campaigning; it’s not hard to imagine words being just words in this speech as well. Good intentions don’t put food on the table; put up or shut up. If four years go by and Palestine is still occupied and Israel is still receiving billions in military aid every year, then Obama was also full of hot air, just like every other American president purportedly interested in peace before him.