Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

Written June 5, 2009

I have a few comments on President Obama's speech to the muslim world. I could go through the speech issue by issue, line by line, but this post would be too lengthy. So, although I will refer to some specific issues, I would like to start with the Big Picture issues.

Clearly, his goal is to have a new relationship with the Islamic world. He has shown that by past speeches and behaviors. He actually said some pretty important things to the muslims:
-he referred to the US as one of the greatest sources of progress the world has ever known,
-he said we support free speech, participatory government, the rule of law and equal justice, transparent and non-corrupt government, and the freedom to live as you choose.
Obama was rightly praised for saying these things to a muslim world that appears not to believe any of it. However, when Bush spoke to the Arab/Muslim world with almost identical comments, he was widely criticized as being naive, and trying to push American/Western values on a different culture. When Bush spoke to the arab/muslim world it did not even make the front page of the papers. But we already know that the mainstream media is a branch of the democratic party.

So, did the muslim world even hear those words? Or did they just hear a few references to the Koran, along with the music to their ears: the words "occupation" and "Palestine." Yes, our president will not say "terrorism" but he had no problem using the arab/muslim term "occupation" to refer to the West Bank and Gaza. He also referred to "Palestine" as if it were a country already. It is clear from reading comments from the muslim world that they expect Obama's words to be followed by real action. What action would that be?

Not likely his promise of aid to improve literacy for girls in the muslim world. Not likely the promise of some micro-financing for women entrepreneurs. I get the idea (not a new one obviously) of improving relations through cultural exchanges and economic aid. He said the last American troops would not leave Iraq until 2012! That did not make them happy. So what actions can he engage in to win the arab/muslim world over?

I'm hoping the answer is: NOT MUCH! In his speech he conceded Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. He knows very well that Iran wants nukes. In a prior email I discussed how Obama sent Panetta to tell the Israelis to just accept that Iran will have nukes. To me, this sounds like "appeasement." The Arabs heard him talk about "occupation" and "Palestine;" which, to me, sounds like more appeasement.

With regards to the Israeli/palestinian conflict, he wants Israel to abide by their prior commitments. Interesting that he does not feel obligated to abide by prior US commitments, such as when Bush assured Sharon that final boundaries would have to consider the "facts on the ground" (i.e. settlements). Or that there would be no palestinian state until they renounce violence first. So, the question remains, what further actions could/will Obama take to make the arabs happy about Israel?

I was struck by one line in particular in Obama's speech. Right after saying that he would speak the truth, he said: "...the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart." A noble settlement, albeit a platitude; but definitely NOT THE TRUTH. And therein lies the problem. The Soviet Union had an ideology that was completely contrary to that of the US and the West. But Reagan did not help bring down the USSR by appeasement, but rather by strength. Does the muslim world have any less of an opposing ideology than the Soviets did? Democracy? No. Belief in freedom of speech and religion? No. Individual liberty? No. But so far Obama's approach seems to be one of appeasement - allowing Iran to get nukes, forcing a palestinian country on Israel while saying that the suffering of the palestinians is intolerable, while neglecting to say that they have brought it upon themselves.

So in terms of the Big Picture, what should be the approach to people whose ideology is 180 degrees from ours?