Another new beginning

Pepijn van Houwelingen (June 26th, 2009)

Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo, boldly titled A New Beginning, has evoked great optimism amongst observers in both Europe and the US. It is certainly true that the President’s eloquent, carefully worded appeal for reconciliation and peace in the Middle East provides a welcome change to the hapless rhetoric of his predecessor: George Bush the younger. Who could disagree with Obama’s lofty and inspiring statements? Citing from the Quran, the Bible and the Torah, and speaking of “civilisation’s debt to Islam” and the task of “recognizing our common humanity” – as well as not using the word ‘terrorism’ – Obama symbolically reached out to those who had felt insulted and humiliated by the previous administration’s approach, which was generally perceived to be of a more belligerent nature.

Soon after the speech, discussions arose on whether or not Obama’s gesture of reconciliation would be effective. Some questioned whether the new approach of soaring rhetoric, flattery and idealism could actually work. In this vein, it has been reported that Obama’s speech has already effectively ‘undercutting extremists’ across the Middle East, implying that ‘being nice’ is effective.1

The most tangible ‘effect’ of America’s new attitude, it has been said, might be the outcome of the recent Lebanese elections, which were won by the country’s ‘pro Western’ coalition. One columnist writes that “the calmer, unconfrontational tone adopted by Washington on Middle East issues since George Bush trudged home to Texas appears to have struck a chord in a country that was teetering on the brink of sectarian civil war one year ago.”2 In addition, “the results are also a boost for western-leaning Arab regimes, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.”3 It may be added, using more objective standards, that these countries might be seen as totalitarian police states. Yet this often becomes irrelevant when they are ‘pro Western.’

It is hard to tell to what extent it is true that the so-called ‘Obama phenomenon’ influenced the Lebanese elections, but it seems unlikely in a country with such a complex political system and with such a diversity of interests. International rather than domestic issues were decisive for the electoral results. One would need to assume one to be at the very centre of the universe in order to believe the claims of the decisiveness of Obama’s new approach: a symptom of certain self-congratulatory observers in Europe and the US, who often assume that politics can be reduced to being pro or anti Western. Meanwhile – in the real world – there has been considerable scepticism regarding Obama’s ‘new beginning’4; not to mention Joe Biden’s veiled threats prior to the Lebanese elections.5

Far more important than rhetoric, however, is whether or not Obama’s lofty words have been backed up with deeds of equal magnanimity. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. One significant issue is that of torture. Whereas closing down Guantanamo Bay was an important step, it seems to be mostly of a symbolic nature, similar to Obama’s ban on torture. Alan Nairn writes that “US proxy torture dwarfs that at Guantanamo,” and posits further that: “What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system’s torture, which is done by foreigners, under U.S. patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.”6

As for Israel/Palestine, regarding which there were some serious omissions in the Cairo address7, the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has recently declared that he is willing to accept a future demilitarised Palestinian state. As one observer writes: “In effect, Netanyahu called on the Palestinians to accept total surrender. It was a speech reminding the vanquished that they have no rights beyond accepting the terms of their defeat.”8 In contrast, Obama commented that the speech was a “positive movement” as Netanyahu “acknowledged the need for two states.” It is unclear by what logic reverting back from a nefariously unreasonable to a seemingly slightly less vile position can be considered a ‘positive movement.’ Obama was cautious, though, and with regards to the settlements he said that “if you have a continuation of settlements that in past agreements have been categorised as illegal, that is going to be an impediment to progress.”9 The key word, of course, is continuation – the fate of existing settlements remains unstated, implying that he is less than willing to take a tougher stand than his predecessors.

Needless to say the settlements are not the only problem, and Gaza still languishes under the blockade imposed upon it. Little has been said about Gaza’s naval blockade, about which Noam Chomsky has written that “it is only reasonable to suppose that the intention to steal Palestine's limited resources is the motive for preventing Gaza fishing boats to enter Gaza's territorial waters.”10

Thus, it is true, Obama has insisted on halting further expansion of West Bank settlements and acceptance of the Road Map, which lays out the conditions for a two-state solution. Yet judging from Netanyahu’s unremitting rejectionism, Obama’s ‘insistence’ has had little effect so far. Evidently this does not mark a new beginning, as it is in fact exactly the same policy as that of George Bush, who was also superficially critical of West Bank settlements.

Speaking of his relationship with Obama, Netanyahu is reported as having said that “we don't see closely, we see exactly eye to eye.”11 Not something Obama should be proud of.

1Huffington Post, 7 June 2009. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/07/some-islamic-extremists-r_n_212309.html]

2 Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, 8 June 2009. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/lebanon-elections-obama-effect]

3Ibid.

4 Robert Fisk, The Independent, 2 June 2009. [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-most-arabs-know-this-speech-will-make-little-difference-1694532.html]

5BBC News, 22 May 2009. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8063111.stm]

6 Allan Nairn, The Torture Ban that Doesn't Ban Torture: Obama's Rules Keep It Intact, and Could Even Accord With an Increase in US-Sponsored Torture Worldwide, 24 January 2009. [http://www.allannairn.com]

7 Jerry Levin, The Palestine Chronicle, 7 June 2009. [http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15177]

8 Lamis Andoni, Al Jazeera English, 16 June 2009. [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009615202848261945.html]

9Al Jazeera English, 16 June 2006. [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/200961613457215405.html]

10 Noam Chomsky, “Turning Point?”, 8 June 2009. [http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21649]

11 Howard LaFranchi, The Christian Science Monitor, 18 May 2009. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0519/p02s01-usfp.html]

Pepijn van Houwelingen is a PhD candidate at Royal Holloway, University of London and co-editor of the Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies. He has previously written about the relationship of the European Union to Palestine, 'Euros do not buy the Palestinians political rights,' in the JCGS blogs.