What will Obama tell the Muslims?
On June 4, President Barack Obama will make his long awaited address to the Muslim world. He has chosen Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt as his venue. What should he be telling them?
What he should be telling them is that the hand of friendship will be extended conditionally. Genuine peace with Israel, for example, will never be enduring until governments, media and religious authorities cease to pump the kind of anti-Semitic agendas into the minds of the people that the world has not seen since the era of the Third Reich.
This is a stain on the entire Arab and Muslim world. Will he have the courage to say this? Will he confront the shabby and dictatorial regimes of the Middle East head on? Will he speak up for human rights? Interestingly, the call for Obama to stand up for democratisation is being loudly made from the Arab world itself. In an opinion piece in today’s Washington Post Dina Guirguis, executive director of Voices for a Democratic Egypt, makes an impassioned plea to the new president not to let the region’s dictatorships off the hook. As the writer reminds us:
“By conservative estimates, Egyptian prisons illegally house at least 8,000 nonviolent political prisoners. The regime has long ignored its people’s peaceful demands for democratic reform and brutally silenced voices of dissent. While Mubarak is perceived abroad as playing a key role in regional stability, the corruption of his regime and its continued repression of the Egyptian people are undermining that very stability and security.”
For the full article click here and sign in:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052203087.html
Well said. But this is a real test of Obama’s character. If he does the decent thing, he will be embracing an agenda inherited from none other than George W. Bush. The American commentariat would pounce on it, especially after his backtracking on dealing with terror suspects. But Obama needs to be bigger than this. The pro-democracy agenda is something which should be a central feature of American foreign policy regardless of whether the White House is run by Democrats or Republicans. Watch this space…..
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Democratizing the Arab world will result in democratically elected Islamist regimes. That’s how Bush’s democratic experiment in Egypt failed. What makes you think anything will change?
Will the Islamists lose their appeal among the 99.99999% Muslim Middle-East anytime soon? I don’t think so.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:24 am
As a matter of fact, John Doe, the only hope for a third alternative to the autocrats and theocrats to emerge is through democratization. In Egypt in 2005, only 20% out of 20% of the population at large that turned out to vote in parliamentary elections voted for Islamist candidates. That tells us that the vast majority are a silent majority that approve neither of Mubarak or the Brotherhood. The status quo, and support for it (by the U.S. and others), maintains this (false) dichotomy that distorts the reality of the Egyptian political landscape while consolidating Mubarak’s hold on power.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I tend to think that if more people would have voted, the Islamists would have gotten more votes. From what I see, the entire Muslim world is just turning more and more radical and hardcore, violent, Islam.
Silent majorities don’t get anybody anywhere. In fact, they are helpful towards those who want to abuse the democratic system.
Another interesting point – what are the repercussions? Say we do have perfectly democratic elections in Egypt, and the Islamist block gets significant government power. The Brotherhood are quite practical and will not upset things until the moment is right.
For them.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Well, the reason more people did not vote indicates that Islamists do not have the widespread support many in the West mistakenly think. But your argument reinforces an essential point: there is more to democracy than elections. Again, the completely closed political space gives more room for the Islamists while completely stifling any liberal opposition. This is why an opening of the political space–which the U.S. briefly catalyzed in 2005–is essential to allow the third alternative to compellingly emerge, and to gain a constituency. As long as people feel their voice does not matter, and short of strongly supporting either Mubarak or the Islamists, they have no incentive to vote or get involved in anyway. There must be some opening so that more people can get involved, namely they must feel there are voices out there that accurately reflect their interests that they can support without threat to their life or liberty, which, under the current emergency state, is not the case.
And I would urge you to examine what Islamist parties have done when they are legitimately integrated into the political space–just look at Turkey and Morocco as examples. While I am not personally invested in defending them, and do not myself support them, it is important not to be biased and make blanket statements/predictions simply because you do not agree with a particular group.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I think you should withdraw your last statement about Turkey. Turkey is on the verge of an Islamic revolution (remember the secular demonstrations?), following classic Da’Wa. Turkish statements about the last Gaza operation did not fall short of those of nations hostile to Israel. That didn’t quite happen before.
Don’t know much about Morocco, but reading through non-mainstream news sites doesn’t show a pretty picture.
It’s democratic suicide to allow parties interested in the demise of democracy to hold power.
I agree with the general idea you present, but the risk of getting an Islamist block in any country – not to mention one that has a peace agreement with Israel, is a major voice in the Arab world and lots more – is a strategic risk.
Maybe an opening of the political space in phases would be the safer path.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
But it’s not democracy to selectively choose who will participate and who will not–that’s the bottom line, and it’s not for you or I to dictate that. That’s falling into their trap. And, also the government’s. The government keeps everyone out and is defended by the West and yet, we hold Islamists to another standard.
Morocco is not a “pretty picture” for reasons not related to Islamist participation in the political process–it is for reasons related to the governing autocracy. And as for Turkey, I do not defend the recent restrictions, but they are finally having problems after years of extending freedoms and leading their country in the right direction. As for criticizing the Gaza war, their voice was not alone. Many countries “at peace” with Israel decried the war and its disproportionate impact on innocent civilians.
Egyptian Islamist parties are in transition and undergoing internal ideological changes; their position on Israel as well as political pluralism (and more) is in flux and not a monolith.