Speaking to the masses

The ascension of Barack Obama to the United States' highest office has prompted mass speculation on how his presidency will unfold. This is particularly true internationally when it comes to U.S. foreign policy in regions most afflicted by conflict - of a political or ethno-religious nature - where the Bush administration displayed schizophrenic policy priorities that sapped American energy and destroyed international faith in U.S. even-handedness. Chief among such speculation is policy in the Middle East, complete with its challenges to regional and international stability. Many are hopeful that a shift in U.S. policy could bring about a much-needed breath of fresh air, reinvigorate the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process and engage with those on the political sidelines.

Indeed, Obama's inaugural speech paid particular attention to the Muslim world when he noted, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Obama has since embarked on "fence-mending" tours in both Latin America and Europe, interacting and impressing political personalities and swells of people from London to Prague.

As a result of these highly publicized events and the apparent depth of Obama's commitment, the Muslim world has been treated to a glimpse of his foreign policy intentions and has begun to pay political homage in anticipation of a plan to construct a more viable regional policy.

This was made abundantly clear when Obama addressed the Turkish Parliament, managing to kill two birds with one stone as he reiterated American support for Turkish accession to the European Union and complementing the Turkish model, which blends secularism and Islam. Although Turkey's human rights record is tainted - a trait shared by most Middle Eastern states - it serves as a positive example to regional intellectuals and civil rights advocates facing the plagues of cronyism, nepotism and the rule by law instead of the rule of law.

While Obama's Turkey speech was uncharacteristic in that it catered to a relatively small crowd and was not meant to inspire the masses - mainly youth seeking an energetic "Yes, we can" leadership - it was quickly picked up by the Arab press.

Related were polls conducted in seven Arab countries in February, where Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was considered a hero because of his highly publicized exchange of words in Davos, Switzerland, with Israeli President Shimon Peres, bolstering his popularity with the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and the Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah. At the same time, Erdogan had been playing an important role mediating secret talks between Israel and Syria, but it was his verbal machismo that made him a hero in the Arab world.

This speaks to the general attitudes toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after the war in Gaza and the frustrations of people on both sides of the conflict.

Calculated policy shift

Since January, the U.S. administration has shown a meticulously calculated policy shift, executed with the nonchalance that only someone like Obama can pull off despite burdens imposed by the failures of the previous administration and the ongoing financial crisis.

While skeptics (like U.S. State Department adviser Dennis Ross) argue that solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not bring about stability to a region with internal strife far more complex, it must be pointed out that the conflict and its symbolism are utilized by extremists and armed groups who employ it as a raison d'etre and tool to rally disenchanted citizens. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Palestinian issue has consistently neared the top in lists of grievances in the Arab and Muslim world.

Other complaints include the lack of employment, economic instability, women's rights, corruption and a lack of political freedoms. The list has grown to include the "war on terror" generally, and specifically Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

The Obama administration knows this list all too well, and it was in fact among the most successful arguments during his U.S. presidential campaign. If we have been given clues of what to expect from Obama in the coming days, it seems like Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledge that the Middle East is not a monolithic problem needing a monolithic solution. They are juggling the issues among a series of meetings, trips and conversations with allies, while appearing ready for dialogue with traditional foes.

Before President Obama travels to Egypt this week - a choice that addresses several criteria, Egypt being the largest Arab state, a recipient of billions of U.S. dollars in aid over the years and an important geopolitical player and at peace with Israel - to give a highly anticipated speech to the Arab and Muslim world June 4, he will stop over in Saudi Arabia in a nod to the geopolitical influence of the Saudi kingdom where not only oil prices will be on the agenda, but perhaps also the Arab peace initiative first proposed in 2002 and expanded in 2007.

The White House, while diplomatic, has not shied away from calling a spade a spade. During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington in May, Obama reiterated his intention to engage Iran while keeping all options on the table, including military action. This meeting was shortly followed by a visit from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas where Obama sent another clear signal, voicing disapproval of Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank and reminding both parties of their obligation to abide by the conditions set under the "road map" for peace.

If progress is to be made in the stalled peace process, Obama will have to engage on a higher level, but this is after all what he does best. He must mobilize the masses and bring hope to the lives of the 65 percent of the region's population below age 30. If regional politicians seeking real peace were to take advantage of Obama's charisma and popularity, he just may be able to deliver the results they need to convince their people of a little experiment they call peace. In terms that are regionally significant, he has already managed to bring about a change by promising to rectify the great wrong of Guantánamo Bay (even if a concrete solution has yet to be worked out).

Any Middle East peace plan will of course require more than just rhetoric, but Obama's speech can mark the dawn of a new era in the Middle East. He is not expected to shy away from critique, but it is his bold remarks that have won him his popularity. He has no reason to stop now.

If Obama wants to connect with the people of the Middle East (he could actually become more popular than their own Arab leaders), he will have to acknowledge the woes they face today. With the financial crisis in full swing and given the changing face of the region and the increasingly globalized economies of the Middle East, the gap between rich and poor is set to grow even wider. And it was not so long ago that bread shortages sparked strikes and riots as Egyptians took to the streets protesting higher food prices.

Change in Middle Eastern countries should not be cosmetic, like fresh paint jobs before a Papal or presidential visits. The occasional release of a political prisoner is not reason for celebration. There needs to be institutional and long-term change. Obama can press governments to implement such changes.

Arab leaders may be worried, not knowing what to expect from Obama's speech. After all, for the first time in a long time, there will be a young, intelligent, fit, charismatic and real leader who people the world over can identify with in sharp contrast to the Middle East archetype of aging, monotonous men with clenched fists. This could result in populations becoming more vocal in demanding change in their own countries - change that does not come in an invasion or from the top of a tank.

As expectations and stakes run high, any misstep would be all the more painful and demoralizing, but this need not be the case. It is now a long-distance run for all sides. With elections in Iran and Lebanon looming, Obama's attitude could actually sway voters more than any local rally or false campaign promise can.

Whether the White House can succeed in upholding all its promises remains to be seen, but this is a first visit, and, in the Middle East, first-time visitors usually receive a warm welcome.

- The author is head of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the Metropolitan University Prague.

Lamis Khalilova can be reached at
features@praguepost.com