 |
 |
Dear critters, I wonder if the discourse of Obama is a suitable topic of discussion on our list? The full text can be found on: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/a_new_beginning.php My own understanding is that there exists no single, ultimate, definition of 'Islam', 'America', 'Israel' or 'Obama'. In this discourse, Obama portrays himself, America, Islam and Israel in a way that both makes peace possible and that is reasonably recognisable by all participants. Many Arabs, Jews and Americans will clench their teeth because Obama tries to articulate painful facts after more than half a Century of hypocritical wishful thinking. Each side will find his words incomplete and they will be right. He does not say the whole truth (can a single person say it?) and his words need to be followed by concrete actions. And yet it was felt, in the Arabic World at least, that his discourse could be one of the most important political speeches since the discourses of Kennedy in 1961 and Marshall in 1947. I see Obama's action as a necessary and insufficient condition for greater peace in the Muslim world. I just hope he does not meet the same fate as other pacifists such as Gandhi, Hariri, Jaures and, of course, Kennedy. A few cursory on-the-spot comments on Obama’s text: In point 1, he gives a picture of America that contrasts sharply both with the discourse of Ben Laden and with the image convened by the Bush administration. He insists on the presence of 7 million Muslims in the USA who enjoy higher than average education and income. Understandably, he does not and cannot mention the huge inequalities that separate the rich and the poor in his own country. He also displays some personal understanding of Islamic religion and culture, probably enough to be more credible than any of his predecessors. On point 2 on Israel & Palestine. He mentions the horrors faced by both people, including Palestinian refugee camps, though he does not venture on the question of the right of return of Palestinian refugees or on Hamas’s apparent powerlessness to control suicide bombings. A key problem that he does not address is the possibility that both Israeli and Palestinian rulers have a vested interest in maintaining a state of war which ensures their continuous re-election. In his point 3, he reaffirms America's commitment to foster a world in which no nation holds nuclear weapons while staying quite elusive as to how this can be achieved. He is more explicit, however, regarding the unacceptability of Iran’s creating nuclear bombs. Notably enough, he breaks with the Bush demonisation of Iran and describes America's 1978 coup d'Etat as 'the over-throw of a democratically elected government'. In point 4, he addresses the question of democracy which he defines as 'governments that reflect the will of the people.' He covertly criticises the war in Irak and reaffirms that 'Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.' By saying so, he also restricts his authority on this matter to that of advice and exemplary action. I am still unclear as to whether this is the alpha and the omega of what a democratic nation can do for their undemocratic neighbours? Perhaps so... Point 5 on religious freedom is telling. Obama mentions the Islam of Andalusia that existed 800 years ago. This is both tragic and astute. Tragic because it hints that, since then, Islamic countries have shown little tolerance to other religions: how many churches, synagogues and Buddhist temples in Muslim countries? How many (ex)Muslims allowed to chose their religious beliefs? It is astute because by mentioning Cordoba in parallel with the efforts of America, he puts some gentle pressure on Muslim governments and populations to accept other religions. The French will also feel the little slap on the wrist... Point 6 on women's rights follows the same discursive strategy: Obama (cherry) picks examples of female achievements in Muslim countries to show that Islam is open to sexual equality. The key and most contentious passage is probably that: "I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice." The last point on economic development seems to be a 'figure imposee' of American president speeches. Obama suggests an American cooperation that goes beyond oil to embrace knowledge-based industries. It is difficult to measure how much of this is empty rhetorics though. Obviously, he is not going to mention the systems of commissions and retro-commissions through which governments from all sides have accumulated petro-dollars over the past 60 years. One foreseeable development, however, is that the USA will purport to influence the training of Arabic elites in the coming decades. One last comment: I wonder how other countries and organizations (including businesses) will respond. Thoughts? Reactions? Rectifications? Ismael -- Dr Ismael Al-Amoudi Lecturer in organisation studies, Henley business school, University of Reading Research Associate of Holywell Manor, Balliol College, University of Oxford Oxford Seminar on Conventions and Rules (OSCAR) http://oxfordseminar.org