Matthew Mainen and Ali al-Ahmed
President Obama’s speech on the Arab Awakening presented a rare opportunity of catapulting American leadership in the Mideast. Unfortunately, little more than platitudes were offered. We heard appeals to man’s dignity, self-determination, the yearning for freedom and inalienable human rights, but those were largely overshadowed by a disproportionate focus on the non-sequitor of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something of little concern to the Arab masses yearning for freedom from their own autocratic regimes, not from Israel.
In fact, the criticism directed at Israel during Obama’s tenure exceeds that directed to some Arab regimes violently repressing their people. Israel’s successively approving new home construction in East Jerusalem has been more harshly condemned than Bahrain’s destroying 30 Shia mosques and shrines in recent weeks. What would Obama have said if Israel destroyed 30 mosques? 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.
Even worse, Obama classified the Bahraini revolution differently than those in other Arab countries. Bahraini protest, Obama hinted, is part of an Iranian attempt to intervene in the Gulf, and not a genuine march for democracy and rights that started in the 1970s, long before the success of the Iranian revolution. This was an insult to the Bahraini people who lost family members in the crackdown before and after the Saudi-led invasion of Bahrain. Bahrain’s problem in Obama’s eyes is a matter of dialogue that should take place between the monarchy and its subject. He made clear that political change is only appropriate for America’s foes in the region and for those regimes that have already collapse
While mentioning Rosa Parks and women’s rights, Obama ignored the struggle against gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia, where severe restrictions prevent women from driving, let alone voting in token municipal elections. Obama said nothing about the Saudi monarchy’s announcement to bar women from participating in the ongoing limited municipal elections for powerless councils. Nor did he of the June 17th plan by Saudi women, in the spirit of Rosa Parks, of defying Saudi gender apartheid by driving en mass.
In Oman, citizens continue protesting for their fundamental rights in a regime single-handedly ruled by Sultan Qaboos since 1970. They too were not mentioned by President Obama despite their potential of building a model Islamic democracy based on their temperate Ibadi interpretation of Islam.
The White House made it position clear when they only invited activists from Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Iran to the speech excluding all activists from the Gulf Arab countries ruled by absolute monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar. American allies are not to be subjected to the same standards as others under the Obama administration.
The US consistently claims that it does not support Arab dictators, but it continues to arm them. 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.
Despite Obama’s lack of decisive action, one should hold in mind that speeches can be equally powerful. 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 communism. But when the walls finally fell in 1989, President George H.W. Bush said and did little, and Reagan’s single speech overshadows Bush’s four years of foreign policy.
Today, President Obama had the opportunity to inspire monumental democratic change in the world’s least democratic region. He proved, however, that he is no Reagan. If today’s speech delineates the future direction of Obama’s Arab Awakening policy, then like George H.W. Bush, he will likely fade into obscurity in the history of American foreign policy.
By Matthew Mainen and Ali al-Ahmed
Friday, May 20, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)