Obama’s Address to the Muslim World : Perspectives of an American Expat

The Speech

The style of this speech was very similar to that of Obama’s well-known campaign speech on the issue of race in the United States following the controversy of his former preacher, Rev. Wright. In both speeches Obama clearly presented the often legitimate arguments and perspectives of each involved group. Rather than speaking broadly and letting his audience pick out his message, Obama very clearly presented his standpoint concerning the current state of affairs.

Whereas his speech on race focused essentially on blacks and whites in the United States, his Cairo address systematically juxtaposed groups involved in a number of issues : e.g. Israelis and Palestinians, Americans and Iranians, the West and Islam. In so doing he unambiguously made his arguments and did not seek to appease any certain group. Not everyone may agree with him, but all should now have a clear notion of his viewpoint. In this manner Obama denounced those who would deny the Holocaust, as well as the oppression of Palestinians for over sixty years. He promoted the values of democracy, but denounced the imposition of any certain form of democracy by one country on another. He defended a people’s right to maintain their own culture and customs – such as the wearing of headscarves by women –, but also said that “a woman who is denied education is denied equality”.

In an attempt to reassure those who worried that his speech would lack substance, Obama clearly laid out steps that the United States will take to, inter alia, pull out of Iraq, promote economic progress in the region and encourage cultural exchange. Moreover, from the beginning to the end of the address Obama made use of Arabic words and phrases – assalaam aleikum (“peace be upon you”), shukran (“thank you”), and zakat(“alms-giving” – one of the five pillars of Islam) – and drew on quotes from the Quran in order to connect with his audience and to add force to his arguments.

Success ?

In general terms, it must be said that his speech was successful – at least as successful as a speech on such sensitive topics could be. In the run-up to Cairo, commentators and experts debated whether or not Obama would be too vague – that is, give a great oratory performance lacking serious details and substance – or to what extent he might discuss democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the often repressive Arab regimes. Many Arabs stated that it was time for Obama to follow his words of “hope and change” (e.g. in Ankara, his interview with Al-Arabiya and his inauguration speech) with concrete action. While he did not present any wholly new policies or initiatives, Obama did make reference to concrete actions that his administration will take to address many of the issues. On the topic of Israeli-Palestinian peace – by far the most important and emotionally loaded issue of the region –, he unequivocally stated several steps that both the Israelis and Palestinians must take to make progress on the agreed upon roadmap.

In spite of his speech being on the mark, generally speaking, there will be those on both sides who will certainly criticize it. Some in the U.S. will claim that he apologized, perhaps indirectly, for past and present American involvement in the region : e.g. the war in Iraq, American stereotypes of Muslims, and Guantánamo. Because of the clear juxtaposition of arguments in Obama’s speech, there will undoubtedly be commentators in the United States that will take parts of his speech out of context to try to demonstrate, for instance, that Obama does not support Israel or that he defends headscarves for women.

As in the United States, there will surely be some Arabs and Muslims that will criticize the speech. They, like their American counterparts, will dissect the speech for phrases and statements that, when taken out of context, reveal American bias towards Israel and prove that the U.S. seeks to impose its “values” on Muslim societies. However, if the speech is considered in its entirety, such criticisms are baseless.

Nevertheless, one criticism that can be made – and without a doubt will be made – is that Obama’s speech was perhaps too idealistic. This is not to say that he was unrealistic in his description of the issues, but rather that he perhaps overestimates the general capacity for significant change among those directly affected by them – Israelis, Americans, Arabs, Iranians, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. When he stated that “it is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true” ; he was right. On the other hand, if it were that simple, many of the problems that he touched upon would not exist today. It must be recognized that there is a multitude of actors who oppose altering the status quo or who disagree with Obama’s proposed solutions that will not change their positions based solely on an inspiring speech.

Conclusion

Taken as a whole, Obama’s speech in Cairo was a success. He was able to give several detailed examples of how he would like to see relations with and in the Middle East progress and he skillfully illustrated both his own personal connection with Islam as well as the positive role that the religion has played in the history of the United States. The majority of Americans and Arab-Muslims should be satisfied. Although the speech may not significantly change specific policy or action in the short-term, it will – like his campaign speech on race in the United States – hopefully serve to open up a more open and candid dialogue on the issues. Obama said that we need to say “in public what we say in private” and his speech in Cairo was a distinctive first step.