Reaction: President Obama's Middle East Speech

Now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, I want to respond to Obama's speech. There was a lot of hullabaloo about what wasn't in the speech--but in a speech addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the most populous Arab country moving towards democratic rule for the first time in its history, and women's rights in the Middle East, there was enough for the President to talk about.

My initial reaction is that the speech was well-crafted and it highlighted several important issues facing the Middle East and North Africa. That said, I was disappointed by how much of the speech was focused on Israel and Palestine. This is an issue which is so immensely complicated and burdened with decades of resentment and hate that it overshadows the events of the Arab Spring. Without question, the issue of Palestinian sovereignty and Israeli security deserves the attention of diligent, patient, and earnest policy makers. In the wider context, the conflict is relevant in that autocratic regimes across the region use Israel as a a scapegoat in lieu of addressing the serious needs of their people. There is also the issue of the Palestinian populations in neighboring countries; Syria and Lebanon each have around 400,000 Palestinians and almost three million in Jordan. In what was heralded as a speech on the Arab Spring, this speech shifted to a prelude to Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's impending visit.

Also, there was a lot of grousing on Twitter about the omission of Saudi Arabia. I was surprised that Bahrain was mentioned, as well as using the term "occupation" when referring to Israel. But calling out Saudi Arabia would really be going against the grain of the relationship between the kingdom and the United States. It is, undoubtedly, disheartening that there is seems to be such little pressure exerted by the U.S. in addressing issues like prohibiting women from driving, arresting Filipino migrant workers for holding secret Catholic services, and supporting Orwellian surveillance that ensures that unmarried people walk separately from to each other. With everything else that is going on, these issues are better left to closed-door discussions.

Obama did an admirable job of personalizing the frustration of individuals like Mohamed Bouazizi who set the wave of revolution in motion after setting himself on fire last December. Bouazizi was college-educated and he eked out a meager living selling fruit. His frustration with police harassment and his unfulfilled aspirations culminated in his now well-known suicide. Obama drew attention to the countries in the Middle East that have been free from colonial rule for half a century, but their citizens have been denied any say in their government and their access to their economies has been similarly restricted. With so much emphasis on the individuals and their lack of personal options, I would like to have seen more specific information about how the United States is going to assist the average person in the Middle East instead of pouring resources into sieve-like governments. What about strengthening civic institutions and fighting corruption? Perhaps the biggest obstacle to any American program in the Middle East is the deep mistrust of American intentions, so how is this deep rooted suspicion to be alleviated? Obama also mentioned American misgivings about the Muslim world--what can be done to build trust?

All in all, a nice speech, but what truly could have been a milestone policy declaration left a tinge of disappointment in that there were not more specifics about how America's economic might, its spirit of innovation, and its unparalleled universities could be of service to people who have only known discontent, fear, and  frustration.

Full text of the speech.

Here is a video of the speech in its entirety:

Book Review: The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday

Having just finished Neil MacFarquhar’s excellent book, The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday, I am impressed at the true breadth and depth of his experience in the Middle East and North Africa. The book is an absolute must read for anyone intrigued by the recent unrest in the Arab world.

MacFarquhar worked as a journalist in the region for the better part of 30 years. The bookopens with his upbringing in Libya on whatamounted to an Texas oil company colony. From this vantage point, he relates funny anecdotes and explores cultural phenomena that are widely misunderstood in the United States. He covers a range of topics: the impact of satellite TV, the intrusiveness of secret police, fatwas, jihad, tribal relations, and the capacity and tolerance for reform in several countries. MacFarquhar illuminates causes of Arab ill will towards the U.S. and areas where the people of the region agree with American policy. The latter part of the book examines the potential for U.S. policy goals (i.e. American national security, democracy, human rights, security for Israel, etc.) and how the U.S. government could better cooperate with their Arab counterparts. He has three big policy shifts that would require a great deal of bravery for a politician of any stripe, as well as an earnest effort to recognize differences in political currents within the meaningfully diverse nations in the Middle East and North Africa.

1. Speak to the citizenry about their concerns on their level. For example, we should not dictate that education curriculums have to change despite that the status quo has served to create foot soldiers for Al Qaeda. U.S. policy makers should listen to parents’ concerns about the schools’ inadequacies and ask questions that highlight mutual concerns without dictating specific curricular changes. This explicit common ground will apply indirect pressure on regimes. MacFarquhar says that the U.S. focuses too much on short-term goals. The U.S. is willing to turn a blind eye to kabuki democracies in exchange for cooperation on energy issues or the war on terror. MacFarquhar points out that criticizing the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have likely led to the loss of an ally. He adds that an open society could oppose Washington because its policies might go against the grain of popular opinion.
2. Vocally support change regardless of how its weak proponents are or if the goals mirror U.S. interests. He suggests that the U.S. should only throw its support behind reform advocates that have stellar reputations in their home countries and try to avoid individuals attempting to capitalize on U.S. support by echoing key policy vernacular. He adds that it would probably be better to strengthen civic institutions rather than push for elections. In many countries, the political parties are anemic at best, with the most active opposition parties being the Islamist parties. He says that this could be problematic for U.S. policy makers as a group similar to Hamas could ultimately win elections and, likewise, create an impasse. (insert note about political participation & concentrated interest). He adds that, “Washington should not lose any opportunity to be seen as a friend of the little guy, and not just a friend of the princes.” (p.356)
3. The U.S. should condemn all repression, especially the near-constant harassment that most people suffer at the hands of the secret police. The U.S. was very vocal about tyranny in the Soviet bloc and most Middle East secret police were mentored by Soviet agencies. “Real stability and security should be rooted in stronger political systems.” MacFarquhar argues that most Arabs do not want to trade in despotic secular regimes for despotic theocratic regimes. The author states that what people want is less corruption and better government services, and they think that religious parties are the only ones strong enough to deliver. He argues that U.S. foreign policy should return to "doing the right thing," and that this would go a long way to fix the U.S.'s image problem. He argues that real security will be the product of focusing foreign policy on a broad, reasonable bulk of Middle Eastern citizens rather than compromising American values for the assured results of a dictator.