On Obama's Arab Awakening Speech

Matthew Mainen

Today, little more than platitudes can be expected in President Obama’s Arab Awakening speech. We’ll hear appeals to man’s dignity, the yearning for freedom, self-determination, and he might even go so far as to call Syria’s actions unacceptable. We’ll also hear the non-sequitor of the last 60 years: “the current events make a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more urgent than ever before.” He could have saved his speechwriter the effort by having a recording engineer amalgamate his sound bites from the past several months.

When Obama initiated his presidential campaign, a common criticism was that the ability to deliver a great speech does not qualify one for the presidency. Such rhetoric was largely discarded. Obama’s 2.5 years in office, however, justify this claim, at least in foreign policy. Aside from being shamed into Libya by France and Britain, dragging his feet the whole way, President Obama’s Mideast approach revolves around insubstantial commentary or selective ignorance.

Take, for example, Israel’s several recent approvals of new home construction in East Jerusalem. Each time, the Obama Administration harshly condemned Israel. On the other hand, when Bahrain destroyed at least 30 Shia mosques and shrines, Obama said nothing. Adding insult to injury, his State Department withdrew from a congressional hearing on Bahrain’s deteriorating respect for human rights at the last minute, not even bothering to send a junior officer.

Obama’s speech will ignore the pressing struggle for freedom in the Arabian Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia where restrictions on women are so severe that they are prohibited from driving, let alone voting in token municipal elections. On June 17, Saudi women, in the spirit of Rosa Parks, plan on defying Saudi gender apartheid by driving en mass. It’s unlikely we’ll get any stance on that from the White House.

Obama should not be singled out for criticism. Even the first Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison, has remained virtually silent. In the past, however, he’s had plenty to say about Israel.

Congress continues supporting dictatorial monarchies though its successively passing weapons deals for the Arab Gulf States with no strings attached. This is particularly concerning as it reinforces perception on the streets that the US upholds its corrupt leaders at the expense of the people.

The US consistently claims that it does not support dictators, but the arms sales show otherwise. Such arms were used in Bahrain and Oman to kill protesters and in Saudi Arabia to violently suppress them. It’s ironic that the US bans even the sale of civilian aircrafts to Iran on the partial pretense of not wanting to support a violent regime while some of the Gulf allies are predisposed to the same level of brutality.

The mainstream media’s lack of condemnation for the continued Gulf weapons deals likely pales in comparison to its hypothetical response to a sale of civilian aircrafts to Iran. The media has also made significant blunders. The Washington Post, for example, egregiously referred to leading Bahraini human rights activist Hassan Mushama as a militant while designating Bahrani Crown Prince Salman, an architect of the crackdown, a reformer.

When Obama speaks today, one should hold in mind that speeches are neither inherently worthless nor innocuous in foreign policy. Reagan’s 1987 “Tear Down this Wall” speech demonstrated America’s unyielding commitment to democracy and emboldened those behind the Iron Curtain in breaking free of communisms poisonous tentacles. When the walls finally fell, President George H.W. Bush had little say, and his response to the democratic uprisings mimicked Obama’s.

If today’s speech delineates Obama’s future policy of dealing with the Arab Awakening, then he will find himself relegated to the same pages of history George H.W. Bush finds himself in failing to enthusiastically support the revolutions of 1989. Even if Obama achieves unlimited domestic progress, he will be shadowed by an inept foreign policy.

By Matthew Mainen