America's Sorry Policy

In 1697, five years after the judges of Salem, Massachusetts sent 20 suspected witches to the gallows, one man stood up in front of his congregation and apologized. Samuel Sewall was one of the nine judges that gave official sanction to the hysteria of the witch trials. In a remarkable act of contrition, Sewall took upon his head the "blame and shame" of the tragedy and wore a hair shirt until the day of his death to remind him of his sin. More intriguingly, he went on to become a champion of civil rights and an early abolitionist.

It would be truly breathtaking if George W. Bush -- or any of the architects of the U.S. foreign policy fiascos of the 21st century -- donned a hair shirt, repented of his actions, and performed an ideological about-face. The parallels with Salem are not trivial: the hysteria, the torture, the legal travesties. But don't hold your breath waiting for a mea culpa from the 43rd president. Instead, it's left to Barack Obama to come to terms with the Bush legacy.

Last week in Cairo, President Obama gave a much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world. In many ways the speech was extraordinary. The president reaffirmed his own personal ties to the Islamic world, quoted from the Koran, lauded religious tolerance, upheld the rule of law, recognized that "the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable," called on Israel to stop settlements, reaffirmed his commitment to nuclear abolition, and tactically refocused U.S. military campaigns against "violent extremism in all forms."

The speech "reflected a significant shift away from the ideological framework of militarism and unilateralism that shaped the Bush administration's war-based policy toward the Arab and Muslim worlds," observes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Phyllis Bennis in Changing the Discourse. It will be remembered, as Akiva Eldar writes in Haaretz, "as the last day of the 9/11 era." And the speech could also help shift the U.S. public's attitudes about Islam, which have been largely negative. "If it reduces American prejudice against Arabs and Muslims, then his address would truly mark a new beginning for U.S.-Muslim relations," writes FPIF contributor R.S. Zaharna in Improving U.S.-Muslim Relations.

For all its strong points, however, the speech didn't contain any apologies. The president might have taken the opportunity to apologize for the way the Bush administration demonized Islam, killed countless Muslim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, supported repressive states in the region, and abrogated the civil liberties of Muslim and Arab-Americans in the United States. But the United States rarely does apologies. And Obama prefers to focus on the future rather than the past.

The closest the president came to an apology was when he mentioned U.S. complicity in the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government in 1953. He didn't apologize for the act (nor did Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000 when she too acknowledged U.S. involvement in the coup). "Rather than remain trapped in the past," Obama said in Cairo, "I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward."

The president no doubt fears a slippery slope -- apologize for one U.S. policy and the demands will escalate to apologize for them all. For the conservative attack dogs, meanwhile, the word "sorry" is like the scent of fear and weakness. At the merest mention of an apology, they will leap at Obama's throat.

And then there's the problem of current U.S. actions. We continue to support autocratic leaders in the Arab world. "Many Arabs and Muslims have expressed frustration that Obama failed to use this opportunity to call on the autocratic Saudi and Egyptian leaders with whom he had visited on his Middle Eastern trip to end their repression and open up their corrupt and tightly controlled political systems," writes FPIF senior analyst Stephen Zunes in How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East. The Egyptian government's crackdown on dissent prior to Obama's visit was a painful reminder of U.S. double standards on democracy in the region.

Obama pledged to adhere to the timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, noted that the United States desires no military bases in Afghanistan, and referred to the $1.5 billion in infrastructure assistance for Pakistan. But we're still at war in these countries, and apologies, if they come at all, are issued long after the last shot is fired.

For all of the president's attempts to focus the debate on "violent extremists," U.S. aerial assaults and counterinsurgency operations are still claiming civilian lives in the Muslim world. This is particularly problematic in Afghanistan, as FPIF contributor Farrah Hassen points out. In his Cairo speech, the president "failed to acknowledge the growing civilian casualties due to increased U.S. drone attacks ostensibly aimed at dismantling the Taliban -- a reality that only increases the risk of blowback against the United States, as opposed to winning the hearts and minds of Afghans, and of Muslims, alike," she writes in Lifting the Veil. "Indeed, a military investigation concluded the United States made mistakes after the May 4 airstrikes in the western province of Farah that killed dozens of civilians."

On the ground in Afghanistan, where support for NATO military operations has declined precipitously over the years, U.S. forces are experimenting with a new policy of prompt apologies for civilian casualties. The apologies are welcome in the region, but words can only go so far. "Apologies are good things," Maolawi Hezatullah, provincial council head in Kunar where U.S. troops killed six civilians in April, told Reuters. "But the foreign troops should convince the people that there will be no more such incidents."

Samuel Sewall didn't simply apologize for his role in the Salem witch trials. He tried to remedy his errors by working to ensure that such atrocities would never reoccur. We may not see apologies for U.S. conduct in the Muslim world coming from top U.S. officials. But if Obama manages to end the "collateral damage" to civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, then U.S. policy will change indeed.

Comments

[S1m0n]

The American commitment to democracy in the middle east is all talk and no walk.

If democracy mattered, the US would be talking to Hamas, not Abbas, because they won the election and have the popular mandate. Mahmoud Abbas has no mandate: His term of office expired some time ago, but with American collusion he has refused to cede power. In other words, he launched a coup against the legitimately elected government.

[darker]

I agree. American commitment to democracy in the middle east is all talk and no walk.
It's a SMOKE SCREEN for corporate WAR-PROFITEERING and taking over
other countries' resources: Oil and gas.

[JEP57]

The speech "reflected a significant shift away from the ideological framework of militarism and unilateralism that shaped the Bush administration's war-based policy toward the Arab and Muslim worlds,"


The truth is is that the Bush administration waged war against "radical" Islam and their terrorist activities and not Arabs or Muslims in general. And there's nothing wrong with unilateralism if others aren't willing to join in the fight against an enemy. As far as Americans negative attitude towards Islam, it didn't help to see those images of groups of Muslims in the Middle East celebrating after the 9/11 attacks.

[jestfam]

The story teller tries to make sense of a non sensical act of bowing to the muslim world. I do not think Obama did anything to sway the feeling of many Americans, that he might have an emotional tie to the muslim world. I did not like his speech I thought he tried to much to cater to thier feelings and make us seem weeker. The people that we are fighting over there will never, even with many hours of speeches and meetings will never have a favorable opinion of America. I dont care as long as we don't hurt our military. The only thing that these guys we are fighting understand is war. They do not want peace. The want to destroy our internet and tv's and cars and anything we consider a luxory.

[Subtext]

If we were attacking 'radical Islam' why did we attack Iraq? That was the most completely un-radical un-theocratic country in the Region.
When you attack an invented enemy unilaterally, it's called a war-crime.
Do yourself a favor and read more.

[pleadthe5th]

Subtext...­Do yourself a favor and read the conditions of the ceasefire after the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein could have LEGALLY been invaded on at least 6 occasions since the end of the 1st Gulf War. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein actually USED chemical weapons against his own people and every major intel group in the world believed he still had the will and the technology to make more. We will never know for sure that he didn't sneak everything across the border to Syria prior to the 2nd war. I concur with Jestfam. Radical Islam doesn't understand anything but brute force. 90% of the Muslim world are generally good people, however, nobody in that part of the world has the balls to stand up and lead a campaign denouncing the actions of the other 10%. Because the American people didn't hear ANYTHING in terms of a campaign against these radical fundamental terrorists, of course their view is going to be negative. Its ironic how liberals in this country say that they are pro-women's and human rights then demonize the US for ridding not one but two countries of leaders who wouldn't let women go to school or drive and would also kill their political opponents en masse.

[mollyjackson]

People are confusing Barack Obama's outsized ego for confidence.