Reaching Out

Barack Hussein Obama chose his first media interview as President of theUnited States carefully. It was not given to one of the mainstream Western mediachannels like CNN or BBC but to al Arabiya, an Arab language mediabroadcaster known for its objective and seasoned analysis. The Obama interviewbroadcast on January 26, 2009 across West Asia shot up al-Arabiya’sviewership rating in the Arab world and for the first time overtook the morepopular channel, al-Jazeera’s top viewership spot. This by itself showshow much West Asians are looking forward to Obama for a change in US policytowards the region. [Transcript.Video: PartI, PartII]

The interview also indicates the new US President’s seriousness and resolvein undoing the Bush administration’s legacy in West Asia as much as it wasabout rebuilding America’s image in the Arab world. As a start, the interviewreflects diplomacy at its best. Without stating the US position on the recentIsrael military action in Gaza which killed nearly 1, 500 Palestinian civilianswithin a span of three weeks, Obama managed to reach out and be heard in theArab world in a way unprecedented by any other President before him.

This approach also questions earlier conceptual treatment of the relationshipbetween the West and the Muslim world articulated by some of the most respectedWestern intellectuals since the end of the cold war.

No Longer "Us versus them"?

The West’s policy on Islam and West Asia has for long been clubbed underthe "Us versus them" discourse set forth by the famous essay ofSamuel Huntington in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1993 titled "TheClash of Civilizations?." In this easy, Huntington argued that "the faultlines between civilizations are replacing the political and ideologicalboundaries of the Cold War as the flash points for crisis and bloodshed". Hefurther asserted that the dominating source of conflict will be based on‘civilization’ due to differences in history, language, tradition andreligion warning that the centuries old military confrontation between the Westand Islam will become more virulent with Arabs resentful of the West’sdominant military presence in the Persian Gulf after the Gulf war. Huntingtonargued that the West’s dependency on West Asian oil will however make itimperative for an intense engagement between the two civilizations complicatedby the fact the any such interaction is bound to result in a clash ofcivilizations. "This is no less than a clash of civilizations-the perhapsirrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against ourJudeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion ofboth". Significantly, the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq since 2003 isviewed by many in West Asia as an affront on the Muslim identity and fallssquarely within the "Clash of Civilizations" paradigm. As a result,according to the PewGlobal Attitudes Project survey on the Bush Years-2001-2008, public opinion in West Asia is highlyunfavourable towards the US. 

President Obama, it appears, wants to change all that during the first fewyears of his administration. During his two years Presidential electioncampaign, he had often stated that if elected President, he will work towardschanging America’s image in West Asia and negate the clash of civilizationthesis. His interview on al Arabiya can be viewed as an effort in thisdirection. Obama stated that instead of looking at specific issues like theIsrael-Palestinian issue which he wanted his new Middle East (West Asia) envoyGeorge Mitchell to handle, he will view the region as a whole necessarilyincluding together the Israel-Palestinian issue, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Consequently, the US will initiate a new partnershipwith the Arab and larger Muslim world based on mutual respect and interest.While asserting that Israel will continue to be a strong ally of the US, Obamastated that a Palestinian state is possible wherein the future generationsshould feel safer.

Obama’s greatest counter to the "Clash of Civilizations" thesisoccurred when he stated in the interview that his job as President will be tocommunicate the fact that the US has a stake in the "well-being of the Muslimworld"; that he had himself lived in many Muslims countries like Indonesia;that some of his own family members are Muslims. It is interesting to hear himsay that unlike the track record of the clash discourse, he will communicate tothe "American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary peoplewho simply want to live their lives and see their children live betterlives.". This human aspect, he argued, is not very dissimilar to whatWesterners also desire of their own lives. This is in sharp contrast toHuntington’s argument that " the people of different civilizations havedifferent views on the relations between God and man, the individual and thegroup, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, aswell as differing views of the relative importance of rights andresponsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy". Thesedifferences, Huntington argued, will get even sharper due to growinginteractions between different civilizations in an era of globalizationresulting in devastating conflict. In contrast, Obama wants to utilizeglobalization’s benefits like the internet and the international media todecrease these so-called civilization differences.

Will he be successful in his effort? Perhaps it is too soon to tell. Thoughthe project of "reaching out" is laudable and much needed, there are certainobstacles on the path.

Bottlenecks 

First, Obama’s holistic approach towards West Asia clubbing all Muslimnations under one umbrella can release negative feelers. One perhaps cannot viewIran, Pakistan and Afghanistan in the same light or Iran and Iraq for thatmatter. The divisions between Sunnis and Shiites must also be kept in mind.Pakistan will also refuse to be a part of the US’s Middle East policyprimarily because of its unwillingness to be clubbed as a West Asian state whengeographically, it falls under the South Asian region.

Second, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in a bad state given thelack of authentic mediators; Egypt and Turkey have lost their credibility asreliable "third party" mediators in the aftermath of the recent Israelimilitary offensive in Gaza. Though the choice of George Mitchell by Obama as hisWest Asian (Middle East) envoy is good, the political stand of Hamas regardingIsrael’s status could also come in the way of a peace process. While Hamas iswilling to accept the "two state" solution based on the liberation of theWest Bank and Gaza Strip up to the borders of 1967 with East Jerusalem as itscapital, it is adamant in its non-recognition of Israel as an independent state.This could create serious opposition from the Israeli side in the negotiations.

Third, Obama promised to withdraw US troops from Iraq based on a 16 months"withdrawal" time table offered by him during his election campaign.Interestingly, many in the US and the Arab world believe him to follow up onthat promise. This promise, however, already seems to be faltering. General RayOdierno, the top commander of US troops in Iraq is requesting for a longer timeframe for troop withdrawal stating that the "surge strategy" in Iraq hasmanaged to stabilize the ground situation. Obama may be hard pressed to followthe military’s advice for a slower withdrawal which can end up alienating theArab world and his own anti-Iraq war voter base at home.

Fourth, Obama’s plan for "troop surge" in Afghanistan could faceresistance from the US military already overstretched in Iraq. And instead ofalienating Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he needs to get the later on board toact more responsibly in rooting out terror elements in the country with the helpof the international forces. Pakistan’s cooperation in Afghanistan and its owntribal areas is also vital. The Pakistan government must not be seen as too weakby its own people on the face of US air strikes in its tribal areas which willonly delegitimise the democratic government and bring the army back to thecentre of Pakistani politics.

In conclusion, it is only fair to argue that Obama might appear to waver insome of his campaign promises based perhaps on the political exigencies of thesituation. Throughout history, men and women in positions of power have pausedfor a while before going headlong to fulfil their stated political objectives.And as the historian Isaiah Berlin wisely indicates in his essay "On PoliticalJudgment", "What is it to have good judgment in politics? What is it to bepolitically wise or gifted, to be a political genius, or even to be no more thanpolitically competent, to know how to get things done?...Obviously what mattersis to understand a particular situation in its full uniqueness, the particularmen and events and dangers, the particular hopes and fears which are actively atwork in a particular place at a particular time…".

It is by the above measure that Obama’s recent gesture to the Muslim worldis perhaps a thoughtful and much needed step if one is to seriously counterextremist groups selling radical ideologies of hate, be it in Asia, Europe orthe Americas, by the click of a mouse.

Dr. Namrata Goswami is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for DefenceStudies and Analyses (IDSA). The views expressed here are that of the author andnot necessarily that of IDSA.