Zcom_simple

114

President Obama's Speech to the Muslim World




Change Text Size a- | A+


Let's start with the obvious. President Obama's speech was a remarkable speech for a President of the United States of America. Leaving aside its eloquence, what was striking about it included his use of history; his tackling the Islamophobic distortions of Muslim history that are so prevalent in the USA and Western Europe; his acknowledgement of the fact that the USA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran; his implied criticism of Bush for the invasion of Iraq; his carefully worded, but equally implied criticism of Israel for its possession of nuclear weapons; his criticism of male supremacy in much of the Muslim world while at the same time acknowledging its existence in the West; and his use of the word "occupation" to accurately describe the status of the Palestinian nation under Israeli oppression.

To be honest, there are things Obama laid out that I never expected to hear a US President articulate. In critiquing the speech one must be quite careful to recognize that we ARE discussing a US President, and specifically someone who is NOT a leftist by any stretch of the imagination.

Obama set out to repair the tremendous damage that had been done by the Bush administration in the relations of the USA to the Muslim world. This is consistent with his efforts to change the way in which the world perceives the role or potential role of the USA in 21st century world affairs. To that extent the speech was an excellent step.

That said, one must be equally cautious in response. Many commentators have pointed to various weaknesses in the speech. Keeping in mind that it was a President of the USA delivering the speech here are a few concerns:

The problems that the world has with the USA go beyond the activities of the Bush administration, a point that Obama implied or stated in key moments, but needed a bit more depth. There was a continued tendency on the part of the President to suggest that there have been errors on both sides, errors that need to be acknowledged but errors that approach equivalence. This is ahistorical. Whether one wishes to discuss the Crusades - which were initiated by Europe - or discuss the 20th century in which Europe and the USA directly dominated or intervened in the internal affairs of Muslim majority countries, there is no equivalence.
Another way of looking at this is to emphasize that this is not about a poor perception of the USA; it is about the history of the USA and its relationship to the Muslim world.

While President Obama has been irrationally attacked by right-wing Zionists for allegedly being anti-Jewish, his comments went out of their way to describe the persecution faced by Jews over thousands of years. While I never expected to hear the President admit to the colonial impulse that resulted in the construction of Israel in the middle of Palestine, his comments on the Israeli settlements call into question only the future construction of settlements rather than the entire settlement project.

The President discussed the importance of democracy in the Middle East, but the reality is that this is not just an issue facing Muslim majority countries.
Israel's internal practices are far from democratic when it comes to the Arab minority. But separate from Israel / Palestine, the USA has never been particularly concerned about democracy; it has been concerned with capitalism. This is raised here because the USA has a relativistic view when it comes to matters of democracy. President Obama was speaking in Egypt where President Mubarak has been nothing more than a sophisticated dictator for nearly three decades. It is just that he has been "our" dictator.

Much more can and should be said about the entire text of the speech. What is more critical is to figure out where does one go from here? Specifically, for progressive groups and individuals, what's next?

Some friends on the Left may tend to disagree, but the unusual nature of this moment must be seized upon by progressive forces and built upon. In other words, while President Obama may not - and did not - say everything that we believe needs to be said, nor necessarily said things in the way that we would have, what can happen now is to identify pressure points and to move on them.

Concretely:

Obama is being attacked by the extreme Right. The nature of the attacks is so completely over the top as to be absurd. One particular attack, however, is one we should respond to: the suggestion that a President of the USA should NOT apologize for the activities of the USA around the world. Progressive people should insist that Obama was not only correct but that he should have gone further.

Obama dared to use the term "occupation" to describe the oppression of the Palestinians. Not only should we unite with this, but we should draw out the implications, specifically, that an occupied people have the right to resist; that according to international law, settlements are completely and unquestionably illegal; and that the USA should not be providing assistance to a government that violates international law.

We should agree that the Iraq invasion was a "war of choice" and as such, the USA needs to withdraw immediately - including all mercenaries and bases - and offer reparations to the Iraqi people.

We must take on President Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan and show that his policies are creating an even greater disaster.

The easiest thing that can be done now is either to jump for joy over the speech or to dismiss it. Both approaches are misguided. What is necessary, instead, is to draw out the implications of the openings created by President Obama and push the Administration on each of those points. We also have to challenge the Administration when he is completely wrong, e.g., Afghanistan, Pakistan.

A breach has been created within the ruling circles and democratic and progressive-minded people need to take advantage of it. If we fail, not only will we miss a tremendous opportunity but we will cede the ground to the irrationalist Right which is out for blood, and not only Obama's.


BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and co-author of, Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice (University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA.

696252

Obama - truth or dare

By Adams, Tyrone at Dec 17, 2009 13:05 PM

 

Bill,  thank you so much for this article. I still too seldomly see criticism of Obama and his tactics.

Yes, it is Obamas job to make both the american public as well as the world believe in a humane and positive role of the USA in this planet. Unfortunately, people are too easily blinded by the positive spirit that seems to fill the room every time Obama speaks. This has created Obamania all over the world. The american elite has been successfull with their move to install Obama at the top at this critical point in time, when both the american publicv and the world have become tired of the blunt capitalist oppressive ways of the USA.

It is not enough discussed how the USA has an interest in capitalism, not democracy. I want to point to Obama signing an extension of sanctions against Mugabe and Zimbabwe early 2009. The same Mugabe which has been supported with millions of dollars by the US government in the 1980s, the same Mugabe which fought against Apartheid in the nearby South Africa. And, by the way, the same Mugabe, who stood up against colonial rulers, both britain as the official colonial rulers as well as the USA as inofficial rulers of many colonial states in the world. The continued strong stance against the oppression by the western countries and struggle in favor of freedom and true indepence of not only Zimbabwe but all african nations is what led the USA and other western countries to abandon Mugabe and call him a dictator rather than a president - while at the same time calling dictator Blaise Compaore the president of Burkina Faso - Compaorew, the man who has been ruling the country for over 20 years since his involvement in the assassination of Thomas Sankara.

Who would dare to call Mr. Bush a dictator, even though it was public in every major newspaper around the world for years that Bush signed laws and engaged in wars that well less than 50% of the american population supported? Bush is more likely to be a dictator than Mugabe, if the interest  of the people of the country being ruled are considered. Of course, from the perspective of capitalism, Mugabe is the thorn in the ... , since he denies further exploitation of both the black people and the black continent on his watch.

And Obama, what does he do... he supports capitalism by extending Bush administration laws to trie breaking the will and subsistence of the Zimbabwean people rather than supporting democracy and supporting Mugabes struggle to end oppression and exploitation in Zimbabwe and Africa. Yes, Mugabe has not been an angel. But again, who will questions american soldiers killing people in the time of war? No american would dare. Why can black soldiers be questioned? Racism and Capitalism go hand in hand. This needs to be acknowledged - especially by Obama and Obamamanians, before a US president can truly be applauded for any speech on the subject of equality and freedom.

Reply this comment


696252

Obama - truth or dare

By Adams, Tyrone at Dec 17, 2009 13:05 PM

Reply this comment

Loading_border