Hindustan Times
Why Obama’s Cairo speech matters
Anyone who has heard President Obama speak, and is not convinced of the possibility of a historical turning point, may safely regard himself to be a prophet of doom.
The President was in Saudi Arabia last week from where he went to make the big speech in Cairo (June 4, 2009). For full text of the speech, click here.
He walked in a familiar swagger, greeted the audience with an “assalamu alaykum”; said he was Barack Hussein Obama and quoted from the Quran. At some point, somebody shouted: “We love you.” Many choked on the speech.
America, as has been said of Shakespeare, is a great but irregular genius. From the barbed wire to the bar code and from air-conditioning to airbags, American inventions have changed our lives. It is because of Americans that we can fly half way round the globe and that we switch on our lights with the fall of dusk.
But for over a century, America has stood for abominable arrogance. It has pulled governments down, fought futile wars, pitted one against another, egged Muslims to war and pursued hateful goals that go against even their own ideals.
Contrary to what one of its founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had hoped for, America’s wisdom did not grow with its power and neither was it enough to tell them that the less America uses it power, the greater it will be.
As it moved from strength to strength, thriving luxuriantly on the fruits of free market, it became powerful but corrupt. Power corrupts countries and superpower corrupts countries superbly. That’s what happened to America.
Now, we have a President with an olive branch. Is Obama to be trusted? Is the Cairo speech to be loved for its lilt, savoured for its fluency, appreciated for its honesty and welcomed for its atonement?
According to some, Obama speaks before Obama does. So is the Cairo lecture to be glossed over as a passing nicety? Does Obama matter (to Muslims, especially)? More precisely, does Obama’s Cairo speech matter?
It does. It was in Cairo that we saw American lexicon change. Bush’s “crusade” (in one of his first comments after 9/11, the former President used this word to describe the war on terror) has changed to Obama’s “cooperation”. “Tolerance” replaced “terrorists”.
Bushed may have hastily retracted the “crusade” epithet, but for eight long years, it was a sticky reminder that America had reduced its war on terror into a battle between Christians and Muslims.
Bush never did anything to clear the air, really. Muslims cringed at the tone of his rhetoric. Even European governments did. Bush’s disdainful demeanour helped al-Qaida whip up more frenzy, more anti-Americanism, find more recruits and fill itself with more dangerous determination.
Now, we have heard Obama say something that has to be adored for even its face value: “America is not and will never be at war with Islam.”
The Cairo speech addressed Islam with sincerity: “As a student of history, I also know civilisation’s debt to Islam.”
It is a fact universally known that Islamic philosophers Al Farabi, Ibn Sinna (Avicenna for Europeans), Ibn Rushd (Aviroes for Europeans) and al-Ghazali rescued and revived Aristotle and Neo-Platonism from obscurity.
The Cairo speech has the urgency of the season’s first rush of snow or a tiger’s leap and it shows what Islam has been. “It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.”
It is not often that Americans accept their follies and promise to atone for them: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
An American had just pledged, in a globally televised address to Muslims, to actually defend Islam. And so we must be willing to at least give him a chance.
Nobody balanced out the vast, silent majority of peace-loving Muslims with the American goal to take on a “potent minority” of Muslims who kill in faith’s name: “We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”
As Muslims struggle to culturally remain who they are, President Obama makes it clear that a women who chooses to cover her hair is no less equal than others but a woman denied education is.
All optimists think alike, but cynics differ in their own narrow ways. Right-wing remnants are saying Obama is going too far. On the other hand, Muslims made sceptical by years of oppression advocate facta non verba, or words backed by deed. Some have already concluded that not much will change.
But in my opinion, here is why Obama need not be put through a lie-detector test. Obama is sincere because he is only reflecting the larger US public opinion, which is against conflict.
Terror must be fought, but without terrorising. It will soon be evident that in this insurmountable war on terror, the West is changing tack. The approach is not changing in White House alone. White House in fact has only climaxed this change.
In January 2008, the British government adopted a new language for description of Islamic terrorism. It renamed “Islamic terrorism” as “anti-Islamic activity”.
It decided that terror by Muslims should be referred to as “anti-Islamic activity”. This is the way to fight terror intelligently. You have to crush the ant that bites, not the entire train of insects.
In one her first speeches, Britain’s first female Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said in January 2008 that terrorists who kill and main were “behaving contrary to their faith”, rather than what it stood for. The West has rightly realised that “directly linking terror to Islam was inflammatory” and risked alienating Muslims. The tactic across governments is to depict terrorists as nothing more than plain murderers.
During his Saudi Arabia visit in January 2008, French president Nicholas Sarkozy hailed Islam as “one of the greatest and most beautiful civilisations the world has ever known”.
President Sarkozy said: “Fourteen centuries ago, from this place, went forth the great élan of piety, fervor, and faith that would carry off everything it met, that would convert so many peoples and bring about the birth of one of the greatest, most beautiful civilizations that the world has ever known. Here in Saudi Arabia are the holiest sites of Islam, towards which every Muslim in the world turns to pray. […] The West received the Greek heritage thanks to the Muslim civilization. […] No doubt, Muslims, Jews and Christians do not believe in God in the same manner. No doubt, they do no have the same way of venerating God, of praying, of serving him; but, at bottom, who could deny that it is the same God to whom they address their prayers?” For full text, click here.
Today’s challenge need not be about Islam versus West, but rather about Terror versus the Rest. Singling terrorists out should be our singular goal. In this pursuit, an Obama in hand is worth two in the Bush.
(5 votes, average: 2.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
meena Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am
@ Bobby
Agree with your last para completely. Was quite shocked by US response. Netanyahu doling out a state to Palestinians is no state.
[Reply]
rakesh Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
meena,just wish to ask you one thing:where should the poor jews go?everyone remembers things post 1945,no one is bothered to ask how many territories have been upusered by muslims prior to that and many places even very recently.i feel israel have full right to live peacefuly and protect its citizen.if some people believe that left free to do whatever they like,the phalestinies won’t harm israelis,then they are living in a fool’s paradise.
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“left free to do whatever they like the phalestinies won’t harm israelis,then they are living in a fool’s paradise…”
perhaps the most pathetic argument I have ever heard to carry on subjugating a class of people. Something similar is used by almost all repressive organizations…the white supremacists had a similar argument against abolising slavery, the Nazis had such theories for what the Jews would do, had they not kept them under control, and the European Colonisers had similar views on what the Black Africans would do to them, when left free.
Forget the hypothetical situation of what the Palestinians
would or would not do when left free, just look at the record of what the Israelis are doing today! A worse record of torture is perhaps hard to find, maybe the apartheid regime in south africa comes to mind.
Sam Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Jews should be able to visit and even possibly live in Mecca and Medinah.
They were living there for hundreds of years, before Mohd came up some verses and declared a religious apartheid in those cities.
He killed 900 unarmed Jewish men and boys.
The captured woman were distributed to his followers.
Will Jewish people have a right to visit atleast ?
Before arabs claim all sorts of things, they should show a true spirit of accomadation and welcome back the original inhabitants of Mecca/Medina.
Ashish Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
@Bobby,
How far do you want to roll back history and how selective do you want to be about it all?
Israel came into being through a UN resolution. Now, you can go ahead and reject the resolution, but would that be productive?
The Arab Israeli conflict is as simple as “give the Arabs back their land and all will be well”. Which land? Should the borders be rolled back to 1948 or 1967 or 1973 or ….. or are you asking for the obliteration of the state of Israel?
Migration of people, races and religions is an incontrovertible fact of the legacy of many people and races. Islam and Christianity are the two main proselytizing religions of the world and their forces have ebbed and flowed right through the last millennium. This land that the Jews claim as Israel, belonged to many people, races and have given birth to 3 major religions of the world. Even a couple of hundred years back, there were very few modern state boundaries as we know them today in that area. Might was right; as has been in many parts of the world right till the middle of last century.
Israel is not the first state that came into being through force or insurgency or “freedom struggle” and it won’t be the last. But, it has legitimacy conferred upon its creation by a UN resolution and all proposed solutions to the settlement of this dispute do recognize its right to exist. Hamas and others only strengthen the hard-liners in Israel. They are not really seeking a resolution.
The most important lesson from history is that (at least to me) one gains nothing from collective score settling. A resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict has to be reached through collective bargaining where both sides have to be prepared to make compromises and be ready to champion the resolution to their not-so-receptive people. One can argue that it is one of the prime factors against a resolution as the assassinations of several heads of state in the region starting from King Abdullah of Jordan show the danger of runaway sentiments, fuelled by cheap talk.
I am a little perplexed about your last statement. I am sure you have unimpeachable sources in support of Isareli repression which brings to mind South Africa’s apartheid regime.
Ashish Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
@Bobby, sorry for the typo on the last message. 2nd para from top should read:
” The Arab Israeli conflict is NOT as simple as “give the Arabs back their land and all will be well”. Which land? Should the borders be rolled back to 1948 or 1967 or 1973 or ….. or are you asking for the obliteration of the state of Israel?”
missed out on the very important NOT. My bad
Bobby Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Dear Ashish,
You are once again making things sound more complicated than it really is.
Everything that Israel holds on to since 1967 is Illegal by international law. I know that you probably do not know this point, but thats the fact. And therefore what Israel should do is to simply , like any law abiding nation, move back to pre-1967 borders. This is the international consensus, which every year is put to vote in the UN, with the result that all nations accept it apart from the US and a handful of small island nations, with populations probably less than Chandni- Chowk. This is the situation. This is not a matter of my opinion.
Moreover, the walls and settlements that Israel is continuously building is also Illegal, and there is a ruling by the ICJ- the International Court of Justice
precisely terming it Illegal. Again no controversy at all, that is if you believe that the affairs of nations should be managed by some sort of International law. Of Course If on the other hand you believe that Nations should behave like Mafias, thats a different matter,
No one is talking of eliminating Israel. What happened in 1947 is grossly unfair to the Palestinians, no question about that, but it does not make sense to undo that after such a long time.
“I am a little perplexed about your last statement. I am sure you have unimpeachable sources in support of Isareli repression which brings to mind South Africa’s apartheid regime.”
I can give you several references if need be, from Israeli as well as Foreign Human rights organizations as well as Independent and award winning Journalists, but its besides the point regarding the issues you decided to comment on.