Obama's Public Diplomacy in Egypt
President Obama’s April visit to Turkey won strong praise for reaching out to the Muslim world. He clearly stated that the United States was not at war with Islam, and its involvement in the Middle East is not solely a matter of opposition to a "fringe ideology” promoted by al-Qaeda. America’s engagement would be based upon “mutual interests and mutual respect.”
This is only the public diplomacy phase, and Obama will eventually need to move beyond stirring words. But anyone who has worked in the Middle East knows this is the mandatory first step. Nothing concrete gets done until there is some sort of symbolic drinking of the Three Cups of Tea described in Greg Mortenson’s best-selling book. It is as significant as Anwar Sadat going to Jerusalem to talk with former Prime Minister Golda Meir before arriving at Camp David to negotiate with Menachim Begin. The visit to Meir was absolutely essential before any serious negotiation could take place.
The key to Obama’s success in bringing about better relations between the Muslim world and the United States is his personal involvement, his ability to show respect for Islam, and what political scientists might call a foreign policy based upon a “systems approach” to the Middle East. Here is a president who can recite the opening of the Muslim call to prayer because he grew up hearing it numerous times each day during his years in Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation on earth. In his speech in Turkey he said, “We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree."
Obama recognizes the value of personal relationships and personal outreach. This isn't Bush hiring an advertising executive like Charlotte Beers or a spinmeister like Karen Hughes to be the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and then letting them do all the work through hollow media initiatives.
During the first week of June, Obama will travel to Egypt to again address the Muslim world -- this time in the largest Arab nation. Because both the Turkey and Egypt speeches will have been given before he travels to Israel this summer, in the eyes of many Arabs this underscores the sincerity of his efforts to reach out to the Muslim world.
The selection of Egypt for Obama’s first major address in the Arab Muslim world is rife with controversy. Egypt has long been the cultural, intellectual and political heart of the Arab world. It is the home of the Arab League but also the first Arab state to make peace with Israel. As residents of Gaza tried to flee the war with Israel in January through tunnels burrowed to Egypt, they were arrested by Egyptian security forces.
Obama will also face strong criticism because his visit implies support for 82-year-old President Hosni Mubarak, whose three decades of authoritarian rule have included jailing or forcing into exile his political rivals, arresting journalists, all supported by perpetual emergency powers. Now he appears to be preparing to anoint his son to succeed him. There is strong pro-democracy as well as Islamist opposition to Mubarak within Egypt and throughout the Arab Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood has used American support for Mubarak to incite anti-American feeling.
Obama must make clear that he is not endorsing Mubarak, his regime or other Arab governments, but instead addressing the people of the Middle East directly, building on the speech in Turkey as well as his interview with al-Arabiya and his New Year message to Iranians.
While Obama can't be seen as rubber-stamping Mubarak's policies, he also must be careful not to appear to be interfering in local government. The backlash caused by Condoleezza Rice's criticism of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in a 2005 speech in Cairo exemplifies the fine line that must be found between criticism and dialogue. This episode certainly can't be far from his mind.
In Egypt, he will need to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, human rights, and democracy, and at least begin to outline his new strategy for the Middle East. As he has noted about Iran, there comes a time when talk alone must come to an end. Actions and results are important. The same applies throughout the region. This may require convincing Israel to freeze settlements and open the crossings to Gaza or to renew discussions with Syria over the Golan Heights.
As the recent meeting with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proved, this will not be easy. While Obama emphasized continued support for the two-state solution, the Isreali prime minister refused to use that phrase, and committed only to support the over-all peace process. Meanwhile, his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said the new government was not bound by his predecessor's positions, including support for a two-state solution or return of the Golan Heights to Syria.
On Iran, both agreed that Iranian nuclear weaponry would pose a grave threat to the entire region, and Obama emphasized his administration's reengagement with the EU and Russia on coordinated approaches to Iran, but also said he would not let talks "become an excuse for inaction" while Iran developed nuclear weapons. Negotiations with Iran are expected to speed up after the June Iranian presidential election. Obama also reportedly reiterated the previous Bush Administration stance against Israeli military action targeting Iranian nuclear sites, underscoring a message delivered earlier by CIA Director Leon Panetta.
Yet Iran may be a common thread for discussions throughout the region, as many of the Arab states are nervous about Iran's regional ambitions and potential economic and military power.
In the Middle East, conflicts are often resolved and agreements enforced through third-party intermediaries trusted by both sides. In this way no one loses face when a compromise is reached. An example is Turkey's mediation of Israel and Syria talks on the Golan (which was going well, though quietly, until the Gaza invasion) or Qatar's brokering a deal on the Lebanese presidency in May 2008. In fact, the US and Israel are probably looking for a mediator with Iran and Qatar might be feasible because it has relations with Israel, is friendly with the US, but is also a neighbor of Iran and has fair enough relations with them including decent levels of trade. We should also expect the Obama administration to re-emphasize the Saudi peace plan that would coordinate over-all regional peace initiatives, as had been hinted by special envoy George Mitchell.
President Jimmy Carter played this intermediary role thirty years ago in the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, which led to peace between these once bitter enemies. While Carter is often viewed as a starry-eyed idealist, at Camp David his optimism was backed by a very powerful stick: the threat of sharp reductions in US aid to both sides if they failed to agree.
In Arabic, this middleman or intermediary is sometimes referred to as a waseet. In the West, a mediator is usually someone who has no personal relationship with parties to a dispute. In the Middle East, he or she must have personal relationships with all parties and most importantly, the waseet must be seen as fair and sincere. This is a role that Obama could easily play.
While there is still enormous distrust of the United States in the Arab world, Obama is well-liked and inspires hope. One of the most reputable opinion polls in the Middle East recently found that Obama polls a 45% positive view (60% if Egypt is excluded) while the United States polls an 18% positive view. In this Shibley Telhami/Zogby poll, 51% of the people surveyed in the six Arab nations said that the initial weeks of the Obama Administration left them hopeful and only14% said they were discouraged. This certainly makes a strong case for Obama personally leading the public diplomacy surrounding the Middle East strategy. In Jordan, 64% of residents believed that Obama would have a positive impact on the Middle East, as did 55 % in the UAE, 49% in Saudi Arabia, 48% in Kuwait, 45% in Lebanon and 35% in Egypt.
Obama seems able to view the world in a way that is common in the Middle East. He is a relational thinker who sees the interconnectedness of issues. This nonlinear or systems perspective allows him to move foreign policy from the single-minded focus of the Bush Administration’s so-called war on terror to a broader and more comprehensive approach that includes many issues simultaneously.
Obama has made clear that the Gaza War, Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah and Iran, Turkey, and Iran are all interconnected into a broad regional system. If you touch one part of this system or link between the parts, the entire system changes. And the United States is willing to interact with all actors and consider a wide array of issues. Britain is now communicating with Hezbollah and Hamas because they are political actors. Chances are that the Obama Administration will do the same -- probably out of the public eye -- even if these organizations do not recognize Israel before any negotiations regarding Palestine. And this will involve Syria, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran as critical actors in this region. Obama seems to understand the interrelationships between actors and events across time and he is willing to engage in diplomacy with all parties in the region without ultimatums.
In his interview with al-Arabiya he said, “I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated.” This is linkage, or a systems approach. It is a way of thinking that is culturally traditional throughout the Middle East and a marked departure from the one-thing-at-a-time approach of the Bush Administration. It connects events in the region and it connects the past, present and future. It could lead to real negotiation, with Obama as a pivotal waseet. It is much more than simply public diplomacy.
