I know many will gush over President Obama's Cairo speech and I'm likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things:
1. Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights.
2. It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works.
I sometimes preface my posts by explaining that my Mideast perspective is that of an American-Lebanese-Christian-Jew who grew up in Muslim West Beirut at the height (or should I say depth) of the Lebanese civil war. The tumultuous and bloody intersection of religions and geopolitical interests is painfully real to me.
Yes, Obama is targeting the Arab 'street' and global public opinion - but to the corrupt regimes that dominate that region of the world, his oration means virtually nothing. Repression and suppression will go on uninterrupted. And to those whose abiding hatred of Israel (and thus America) is absolute, Obama's words will be seen as empty and hypocritical.
Egyptian blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy explains:
Right before he took off from DC, on what the media has been depicting as some "odyssey," to address the Muslim World from Cairo, President Obama had described the 81-year-old Egyptian President Mubarak as a "force for stability." This week Cairo and its twin city Giza have been a showcase of what this "stability" cost.
The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations. Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the "historical speech," State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations.
Is there an overarching purpose to Obama's speech? Is it to repair our image after eight years of a radical rightwing administration? Of course. But if the goal is to repair our image, then how about shunning the barbaric concept of indefinite detention? How about heeding the increasingly distressed calls of those who view the new administration's actions in the realm of civil liberties as a dangerous, disturbing, and precedent-setting affirmation of Bush's worst excesses?
Glenn Greenwald writes:
The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States."
What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn't even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed "to make his administration the most open and transparent in history." After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: "what makes the administration's support for the photographic records act so regrettable" is that "Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government."
What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it.
Glenn has been documenting - and railing against - dozens of similar instances. I echoed his concerns in a recent post:
Setting aside all the campaign slogans about hope and change, what Obama really signifies is a razor sharp break from Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rice, Rumsfeld, Addington, Libby, Bybee et al. After eight years of damage to the fabric of our Constitution and our nation, the entire point of a new face, a smart, youthful, inspiring Democratic president is to completely and totally reject the Bush years, to reject the lawless behavior, the Orwellian rationales, the blatant disregard of the Constitution. Neglecting to do so, and leaving any doubt about where Democrats stand on these issues, is profoundly detrimental to the country.
Take the issue of women's rights, addressed in Obama's Cairo speech with the most tepid language:
"The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it."
"I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.""Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world."
"Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams."
Is that a joke?
With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.
I return to the example of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow:
13-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death in Somalia by insurgents because she was raped. Reports indicate that was raped by three men while traveling by foot to visit her grandmother in conflict capital, Mogadishu. When she went to the authorities to report the crime, they accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death. Aisha was forced into a hole in a stadium of 1,000 onlookers as 50 men buried her up to the neck and cast stones at her until she died. When some of the people at the stadium tried to save her, militia opened fire on the crowd, killing a boy who was a bystander.
A witness who spoke to the BBC's Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium. ... She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.' "A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her." The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was "awful".
Enough with the perpetual campaign. True justice, true peace, these are earned through courageous decisions and bold actions. Real truth to power.
If we are to fix America's image in the world and if we are to heal the planet's myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy.
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
Peter Daou: Are Deaths From Terrorism Qualitatively/Morally Different?
We must do away with the flawed notion that combating terrorism requires a unique set of guidelines -- that somehow deaths from terrorism are qualitatively/morally different.
Peter Daou: On Gang-Raping and Killing Babies and Lesbians
We all die in some manner or another, but an act of human will, of intentionality, a choice by one person to harm another, is not the same as an act -- or accident -- of nature or a cruel vagary of fate.
Peter Daou: 13-Year-Old Somali Rape Victim Stoned to Death in Front of 1000 Spectators
I hope we can all work with the incoming administration to begin creating conditions in which we can banish this barbaric and malevolent behavior from our planet.
But I think that he was trying to say that women should have the right to have that choice but it will never happen but as someone else said the rape and so many other crimes that are happening agains innocent women because they are women should stop TODAY!!!
Every auditor the EU has appointed has refused to sign their accounts because the unelected EU Commission will not provide proof of their expenditure - auditors have been told to just sign and shut up, and when they refuse to do so have been sacked.
A European media company recently conducted and investigation which showed that there is widespread abuse of the EU's MEPs' daily attendance allowance. Many MEPs sign on early in the morning on Fridays to collect their £1000 daily allowance then leave for their home countries without attending the parliament.
How could your President endorse such a corrupt organisation?
We are fighting for national Referendums on the EU's Lisbon Constitution which our leaders' election manifestos undertook to give us but which they now refuse to allow us to have.
Polls have shown that here in UK alone c 80% of us want a Referendum in the Lisbon Treaty, yet our Prime Minister has refused to allow us the vote he undertook to give us.
Some 80% of UK laws are now made by the EU, yet the EU Commission which heads the EU and which dictates most of these laws has never been elected. So how could Obama endorse the EU?
President Obama endorsed
I am a supporter of our President but this tendency of his to always find the middle ground on every issue is intellectually dishonest. Like it or not there are millions of ultra orthodox muslims in the arab world that may not be violent extremists like al-queda but that represent everything our nation does not...can we reach out to them? of course, but there are somethings you confront head on like women's rights, freedom of religion and freedom from religion period.
Man you Obama fans sure like your commercial branding a lot.
Evidently you only understand things after Fox News tells you what it means, which would explain how words like "relationship" and "change" are lost on you.
Government, and history, cannot move as quickly as every interest group would wish, but it can move more quickly if a conglomeration of groups could get behind one issue at a time.
It's time to stop the division between the separate smaller entities' power in the left and do exactly what Mr. Obama is doing now. Juggle without dropping the ball.
Imagine what these kind of wide-gauge admissions - and demands - would reap for the American economy and people. Understand what serving every issue at once would do.
Settle down, niche idealists, and see the big picture. You're embarrassing yourselves by not recognizing the wisdom on display here, as well as refusing the forward motion it's been possible to make under Mr. Obama's administration.
The reason Bush was in power for so long was the inability for the disparate groups of the ostensible 'left' to come together. If I were a Republican strategist, the myriad dissatisfactions within the Democratic Party - even after this great victory - would leave me licking my lips. Their ignorant at least know how to stick together.
Obama is a great orator. And gives hope to many people. Thats not to be underrated nor underestimated. However, I do feel very strongly that we can only put our money where our mouths are through concrete actions. Just hearing the words of "indefinite detention" coming out of Os mouth a couple of weeks ago, sent chills down my spine.
I really hope he is different.
Meanwhile we let whack jobs in our own country unhindered access to wmd. A rifle, a gun is a weapon that can do massive destruction. To a family, to a whole community, to a legal profession.
ok - going off topic here.
But well, yes, behind every strong man is an even stronger woman? lets hope so.
The point here being - inspiration is not enough.
"The Haredi sect has launched an aggressive campaign against the secular lifestyles of women in Jerusalem" by Toni O'Loughlin in The Observer, Sunday September 21 2008
(http://saudiamber.blogspot.com/2008/09/jewish-religious-fundamentalists-in.html)
A fundamentalist Muslim cleric in Australia blamed victims of gang rape in Australia because of their "immodest" dress, comparing them to meat. "Sheik Hilali said: 'If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? ... The uncovered meat is the problem.' " (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html)
Let men take responsibility for controlling their own hormonal urges.
My question is do you believe it is America's responsibility to change the middle eastern cultures which accept misogynist beliefs? Let alone the question of whether America can change another culture. Honor killing for example is not a religious belief condoned by the Quran. It is a cultural belief widely accepted throughout the Middle East and is not limited to the radical or fringe elements in cultural backwaters. At least that's how it was explained to me by a doctor who was a very well educated family man, not a radical or extremist in the least. He felt it was more humane for a woman to be killed than to have to live with the shame of "going down a wrong path".
I believe the President's job (any president) in foreign policy is to protect US interests. I would expect Russia and China to do the same.
"This is a really powerful argument for why many black leaders should take a stance on reproductive rights because of the unique implications for black women. At a certain point we have to stop being scared and hold our community leaders accountable for the things they are saying and the impact that has on our communities. The agenda for women's rights and the agenda for civil rights has to overlap at a certain point. That said, I don't necessarily think of the NAACP as the center of progressive anti-racist activism, similar to how I don't really see many mainstream feminist groups as having a truly intersectional approach. But this is one way they both could move towards the direction of justice, as opposed to a solely identity politics based approach, playing to the common denominator."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Somalia#Politics_since_1991
Note I'm not suggesting we try to clean up the mess we've created. That invariably makes matters worse. We need to leave them alone to find their own way. After all, that's the Prime Directive.
Political consultant, former Internet Adviser to Hillary Clinton
My first question is one of skepticism … are you still consulting for Hillary Clinton, or holding some political grudge? I say this because the Clintons were politically destroyed when they in fact had such political power and position and were the odds on favorites to win the White House. It appears that you have a grudge.
It appears that you have not done the investigative research to find out the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of President Obama’s vision of Peace in the Middle East and around the World.
President Obama has presented a United States diplomatic face never seen before!! It is a total plan involving …
President Obama laid the cards on the table … face up. Nothing was hidden. Those countries that seek peace will be received; those that do not will be dealt with.
In the eagle's right talon, it clutches an olive branch with thirteen leaves signifying peace. The eagle faces this direction to show a preference to peace over war. In the eagle's left talon it clutches a bundle of thirteen arrows symbolizing military might.
The President used the symbols and talked about the strength of the United States and how it must be used. The importance of the olive branch and the arrows plays a major role in the President’s Open Hand policy.