President Obama likes to position himself as an intermediary, explaining two conflicting parties each to the other. He did so in his race speech in Philadelphia, he did so when he spoke about abortion at Notre Dame.
In Cairo, he took a similar position between the United States and the Islamic world. He urged Americans to take a positive view of Islam, and urged Muslims to take a positive view of the United States.
But whereas in Philadelphia and Notre Dame Obama was explaining two groups of Americans to each other, in Cairo he exhibited the amazing spectacle of an American President taking an equidistant position between the country he leads and its detractors and enemies. It is as if he saw himself as a judge in some legal dispute, People of the Islamic World vs. United States. But the job to which he was elected was not that of impartial judge, but that of leader and champion of the American nation.
The President said: "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."�
The same principle? Shouldn't an American President feel an attachment to his own country above all? Shouldn't misrepresentations aimed against that country energize him more?
And yet the tone of this speech suggested that if anything, such misrepresentations energize him rather less. Listen to this passage:I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.Well yes, they are facts. But they are also something more: They are wrongs done on a massive scale to the United States by people acting in the name of Islam, wrongs condoned, endorsed and excused by many in the Islamic world. When addressing grievances expressed by some Muslims, the President spoke understandingly and sympathetically.[T]ension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.When speaking of the wrongs done to the United States by people acting in the name of Islam, however, the President mentioned nothing but the bare fact. To that subject, he brought no emotion at all.Next problem.
The president addressed "” surprisingly briefly "” the issue of the rights of women in the Islamic world. This is not a small issue, now that the Islamic world extends into Europe and America. Women in cities like London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo face mounting threats not only to their freedom, but even to their physical safety, from men who deploy violence in the name of Islam. Nor is it only Muslim-born women at risk.
Now listen to the President:I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.But it is not only "some in the West"� who take this view! It is many Muslim-born women themselves, some of whom live in the West "” but others of whom live in Muslim-majority countries. What on earth is an American President doing taking sides on this internal question of Islamic practice?
What's next "” a speech in Jerusalem where the president says, "I reject the view of some in the West that chicken is not a "�meat' for kosher purposes"�? A speech in Vatican City where the President endorses clerical celibacy?Such interventions within Judaism and Christianity would obviously be unthinkable. Yet here is an American President intervening in an internal Muslim debate "” and not only intervening, but intervening on the more reactionary side!
The risk with this speech from the beginning was that the President would turn his back on the people in the Muslim world who most admire Western freedom "” and who most need our understanding and support.
The President:[I]t is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit "” for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility toward any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.These words are a slap at the government of France, which restricts the wearing of hijab in schools. Yet polls show that a large majority of French teachers support the ban. Possibly these teachers are all bigots. But possibly also they understand that hijab is frequently compelled upon girls "” not only by their families but by the youth gangs that patrol French suburban neighbourhoods enforcing Islamic conformity on those who might wish to escape.
Islam is not a monolith, we are often told. And that is true! The Islamic world is also the home of Dr. Younus Shaikh, a Pakistani scholar charged with blasphemy for stating that Islam did not exist before Muhammad.
The Islamic world is the home of the terrorized young gays of Iran. It is the home of Saudi women who want to drive. Did the President have anything to say to them?
No, no and no. For all the speech's reasonable tone, it persistently treats the more traditionalist elements within Islamic societies as the more authentic and important.
One of the most disturbing things about the Cairo speech is the persistent misrepresentation of history.
It is really absurd to say that Islam for example has "always been a part of America's story."�
It is something worse than absurd to use a speech on Islam to apologize for America's part in the overthrow of the Mossadeq regime in Iran in 1953. Mossadeq was a secular nationalist, passionately opposed by Iran's religious establishment. That establishment finally seized power for itself in 1979, and since then it has made a martyr of Mossadeq. For the United States to apologize to the present Iranian regime for the overthrow of Mossadeq would be a little like president Eisenhower apologizing to Josef Stalin for the murder of Trotsky. Agreed, we didn't much like Trotsky "” but Stalin is not the man to receive that apology, and neither are the mullahs the people to receive an apology for the events of 1953. President Obama would have done better to publish the amount of CIA money the ayatollahs collected in return for opposing Mossadeq!
Throughout the President's speech, he takes pains to admit and ratify the validity of complaints against the West. This no doubt strikes Obama as a clever piece of ju-jitsu: a harmless concession that opens the way to dialogue and détente.
But what it also does is cut the ground out from under those liberal Muslims and Arabs who reject a victimological approach to their own history. Many of the worst elements in the Islamic world tell a one-sided history that denies or excuses the victimization of others and that throws all blame for frustrations and disappointments upon outsiders. That version of history now commands the assent of an American President. And while he may regard his concessions as empty compliments, they will carry ominous meaning for many who struggle for the freedom to narrate a more honest history.NewMajority.com
More than usually incoherent, David. I know you have a mandate to roast Obama on all occasions. You had a critical review out on this speech weeks before it was even given -- so this is no surprize.
But it does the cause of the GOP no good to misrepresent Obama's position by selective quotation -- your remarks about the hijab and France clearly do so. You may be able to sell this to the Rush Limbaugh's of the world, but I didn't think that was your hoped-for audience.
The speech was clearly an effort to insert a wedge between the extremists and main-stream Islam. It appears to have been a clear success in that regard.
The world is changing. The GOP had best get with the program if it wishes to be relevant. Attacks on the patriotism of the President are not the way to go.
I hadn't considered that his speech might undercut reformers - interesting insight. Obviously using this speech as a platform to scold the Islamic world for their issues would have been counter-productive and increased hostilities, but it might have been smarter to make no speech at all.
Well, it certainly is a radical departure from previous American policies of lecturing to other countries, ignoring the realities of the rest of the world, being entirely obsessed and consumed with "American Interests", rejecting other people legitimate rights to even exist and generally being the "Ugly American".
It's all fun to pick out passages from speeches, made easier by the fact that, compared to Bush's speeches over 8 years, there are actually properly constructed, grammatically correct passages that actually have meaning(and in English, too!).
If America is to regain it's influence and credibility in the world, totally destroyed by the Cheney/Halliburton White House over 8 disastrous years, there needs to be a "Citizen of the World" at the helm. Obama has made a significant start with this speech, now the real work begins. The age of "America, Right or Wrong", "Unconditional Support of Israeli Policies" is OVER, thank God. The recognition that others in the world have a right to exist is refreshing and RIGHT.
Anonymous66: I think you've got it right when you said "it might have been smarter to make no speech at all".
Certainly it would have been counter-productive to stand up there and scold the Islamic world, but I'm not sure he accomplished anything productive by acknowledging all of their greivances, real and imagined.
You missed the point, Mr. Frum. After a long history of U.S. support for Isreal, here finally is an American leader who is willing to stop "taking sides" and promote detente. At least that's what I heard in this speech. The last thing the world needs is one more person pointing out the "evil" of the opposition, whichever side that may be. "If you want to hit a dog you can always find a stick". I believe that the vast majority of ordinary Muslims and Jews in the world want peace and nothing more than the ability to pursue a decent life for their families. You have to start somewhere.
When David says that encouraging head-covering is "reactionary" Islam, I agree. However, when he makes the analogy with dictating aspects of Catholicism or Judaism, the analogy is false. The oppression of women in Islamic countries is cultural and political. Head-covering and espcially voting with a veil over your face are marks of civil submission, as well as religioius, and are threats to a free society. That's why, I suppose, Obama felt he needed to mention it. However, he should have abstained from mentioning it if he wasn't prepared to call for full emancipation of women.
One of the things that Obama did very clearly was show an understanding of the diversity and nuance of the muslim world that David Frum still seems incapable of grasping.
When Obama stated that "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. " He was directly rejecting the kind of intellectual shortsightedness that Frum is showcasing yet again when he lumps Iran and Saudi Arabia in together as 'tradionalist Islam'. Iran and Saudi Arabia are *radically* different from each other in almost every way *including* theology. Any defintion that can smoosh them together is so vauge as to be completely meaningless. And yet this ill defined catch all is what the entirety of Frum's article is based on.
Two key part of the speech regarding free speech being this:
"I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality"
Moving from the sensationalism of the 'evil hijab' to the true substance of *education*. This is appeasing the 'traditionalists' of your definition?
"and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice"
THIS is appeasing your 'traditionalists'?
To Matt *ignoring* the legitimate greivances of any people is what causes the greivances to fester and for any goodwill to dry up and wither away.
To acknowledge the real greivances while rejecting the imagined ones as Obama did? Now that, take it from me as a Muslim is just a huge overdose of productiveness. As productive as any speech could possibly hope to be.
Obama the great appeasor (words only).
Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain (and whatever actions he may do).
Truth is, it is up to the citizens of every country to decide what they will tolerate or not from their rulers and fellow citizens.
Obama (and all of us) need to focus on our own internal affairs and controlling our own criminals and despots.
Internationally, we should be open to peaceful trade and dealing with our neighbors in an honest, civilized, respectful of their beliefs and customs manner.
If we find ourselves faced with a tyrannical, despotic regime, well, the most effective thing to do is shun them, refuse to trade and wait for their own people to deal with their own despots (who require our trade to survive), as they always do, if left alone.
Obama is playing a dangerous game, pretending to be mediator, in the area of beliefs between those whose whose beliefs are incompatible with freedom and universal human rights.
No compromise is possible except in the area of common interest, which is:
-Non interference in internal affairs of other countries. Kill illegal and very dangerous concepts of "preemptive justice" and "preemptive war"
-Peaceful, honest, mutually agreed trade
-Adhere to international law, co-operate against criminals
-De-escalate increasing worldwide tensions by dealing with current and past US crimes, compensate victims.
-Don't financially stiff the international community (esp China) by ripping them off by debasing (inflation) $US. The US cannot take on the whole planet and, tolerance has been exceeded.
This is the second time in as many days that you've taken the Junior Senator from Illinois to task for the things he does well. "Critical at any cost" doesn't suit you Frum. You're better than this. You know full well that Obama's position is based, in part, on liberal guilt and what better way to solidify that then a litany of victimology. This Cairo speech plays well to Obama's coalition at home and doesn't mean much to anyone else. It would be better if you focus on how and why Obama is getting outwitted by both Hamas and the Israelis at the same time or his non-existent Asian policies or his ineffective response to North Korea. This speech was for semi-suburban America not Saudi Arabia and you know it.
About the blog of the National Post Comment section.
A note on reader comments: Your comments are welcomed. We accept new comments for 72 hours after the initial posting of most entries.
Read more commentary on Canadian and global business, politics and the fight against junk science on our FP Comment blog or subscribe via RSS.
Read Full Article »