View From Cairo: What About the People, Obama?

The air in Cairo is noticeably cleaner than usual and the stifling traffic has been veered from its heart this week. Shops have been closed, streets have been blockaded, and the Egyptian police state has outdone even itself with the massive security presence throughout the city. Obama is in town and the Cairenes must suffer the consequences.

Perhaps this paradox, more than his speech, has been Obama's inevitable message to the Muslim world: that the United States will look the other way at your governments' repressive policies because a working relationship with them is more important than a consideration of the peoples' rights.

Politics at its best - but where does that leave the people?

"He's here only eight hours, and yet my building has been taken over by security guards and I must show an ID just to go home to my family," a downtown cabbie who lives near Cairo University in Giza told me. "Is this democracy?"

Obama's speech was a carefully constructed, second speech to the Muslim world - do not forget his speech in Turkey in April. Today in Cairo he touched on a great deal of the issues that Western observers think Muslim people care deeply about.

On many fronts, Obama was right.

Merely speaking words like "the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable" or "civilization's debt to Islam" is important and necessary and Obama deserves praise for providing these nuggets of appreciation and historical perspective.

But his words today were more useful to the governments with whom the United States must engage during his administration - governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of whom have a severely problematic regard for the rights of their people - than for the Muslim people whose living reality is too often stained by insufficient power to improve their lives.

The White House promoted this speech as a discussion with the Muslim world, but most of what Obama said seemed geared either to the governments of the Muslim world or the Muslims who live in the West.

Even when he touched on women's rights, Obama framed it in a Western perspective: he disagrees with Western nations - perhaps an allusion to Germany and France's recent problems - who struggle with Muslim women wearing hejab.

But he didn't come at the issue from the perspective that was promised -- by addressing Muslims in Muslim countries. If that were indeed the case, we should have heard his analysis of women who are compelled or forced to wear hejab in these countries and women whose lives and livelihoods are severely impaired by the segregation of sexes that pervades much of the Muslim world.

He commendably touched on the need for girls and women's education in Muslim countries - but ignored the fact that in the Muslim countries where women have least access to education, Islamic fundamentalism is often strongest.

At times in his speech, it was almost as if Obama in his elegant oration was pandering to the fundamentalists and the oppressive governments who have defined the Islamic dialogue for decades. He said that he does not want to be a prisoner of the past, but his speech was littered with history which, while accurate, is old news when it stands alone without direction or context.

If for Obama the Muslim world refers to the Muslim people, then their lives now and their future are more important to them - regardless of their religious values - than a detailed analysis of where their religious and political leaders have been.

"I don't know who Obama is yet," the cabbie told me, "but I wonder what he wants of our people."

Comments

[Anonani]

I know that Mr. Obama is doing a good job when he gets the same criticism from you that he gets from Americans, "what about me and my problems?" Has there ever been an American President, or any leader of any nation, from whom so much is expected? As I read your article, you wish the further add the weight of not only addressing but taking responsibility for solving euphemistically, world hunger.

I am truly sorry that your city and your people were inconvenienced by my President's visit to your country. The same thing happens in his country as well. But we know, despite the equally vocal complaints over here, that our history of assassinating and attempting to assassinate our Presidents is real, recent enough, and a constant threat. So, we accept the inconveniences because relatively speaking we would rather that than to lose him to some crazed idiot.

We need him to stay the course and finish what he has begun.

I am proud that he wanted to go to speak to your country and did such a fine job even though he could not and did not take care of every

[zakwouldhave]

Whatever your take on Obama.....­.he sure seems more willing to try new approaches that does not overextend our military or cause the deaths of US troops. I don't have any respect for extreme religious practices or religious interference in government­...here in the US or in the middle east. But Obama is at least trying to unite people across the globe with their commonness. Of course extreme right wingers here in the US will say thats being soft. Just like the extremists in the middle east think the same.

[DenaSilver]

And by the way, he's the President of the United States, not Egypt. Perhaps the leaders of Arab countries bear some responsibility.

If Obama's words made sense to anyone, and if the leaders took note of the applause, and the silences, then Obama did more than any other leader ever has.

[calbears]

Egypt--open Gaza's borders.

[Vieux Charles]

When Obama announced that the US renounces and condemns its past use of torture the thunderous applause from the Egyptians was a bit confusing - especially coming from a people that regularly tortures its own.

President Obama's attempt at conciliation for our conduct to such a society was absurd.

[RationalityPlease]

Yes, I suppose it would be confusing to someone who doesn't realize that the people of a nation do not necessarily agree, in fact often disagree, when the tyrants ruling them do things like torture people. Golly gosh, just like what happened here under King George and Emperor Dick.

[Progressneeded]

I guess when the few Americans who listened to, and laughed about,the jokes Bush made regarding the fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq after the US had mass destroyed Iraq' represent all 300,000,000 Americans.

[Acidic]

Typical, If they want rights/equality than take it! Stopping blaming the US for attempting to make there miserable lives better. They blame the US for both sides of the argument. It's truly pathetic.

[Progressneeded]

Well maybe it is the American corporations and the World Bank they support and impose on 3rd world countries as they try to "spread democracy" that the rest of the world resents and is angry about. You might want to learn a little bit about the "economic hitmen" many US corporations use with the blessing of our government and residents.

[Ginger5]

The democracies in the middle east are more vicious and more warmongering than the other nations.
All they do is fight.
Give me a stable dictatrship,

[DeWayne]

I don't kow if I would call the Westernization of (some) ME allies as Democratism, especially in the Middle East known for the strong religious commitment of it's citizens in perhaps sect's of Islam, something like saying Lutheran, Methodist, ect.

I take propaganda about 'Islamofascist' terrorism with more than a grain of salt, considering the true Qur'an and Islamic Cleric around the world speaking about (our Freedom Fighter) Osama bin Laden, sayig his murder of innocent by terrorist is forbidden, one US-Gov official shortly after 9-11 placing in the Congressional Record that the top Islamic Cleric in the world condemned Osama (as accused by the US-Gov) as involved, despite later finding 9 of the 15-WTC terrorists are still alive.

I hope now the Egypt-Gov opens borders and trade with the Gazans, rather than kissing other hindmost.

[RationalityPlease]

Is that why you voted for Bush? You wanted a stable dictatorship?

[Onepebbleinthelandslide]

Last November you appropriately wrote a tribute to the, “countless individuals and groups who have spent the last nearly 8 years exposing the atrocities of this government that shamelessly hijacked the electoral system of the United States in its mission to pilfer, divide, and conquer the world.” So, it’s not as if you just fell off the turnip truck. You seem well aware of our current world image dilemma and the events which facilitated the state we’re in.

Now though, it sounds like you are suggesting that the new administration should continue the same sort of ham-fisted, insensitive, ideologically superior bluster and bullying that got us into this fix. I went and read some of your other articles to try and get an idea of where you’re coming from and now I see how you could find such an approach appealing.

[twocrows]

"Perhaps this paradox, more than his speech, has been Obama's inevitable message to the Muslim world: that the United States will look the other way at your governments' repressive policies because a working relationship with them is more important than a consideration of the peoples' rights."
xxx
the problem I have with the above statement is this:
we MUST have a working relationship with the governments of repressive regimes if we are to have any effect on how they treat their people.

our government has tried shaming them. it didn't work. we've tried overthrowing their governments. that didn't work either.

the only thing left is entering into a dialog with them as an equal. pretending we're better than they are hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future.

no one listens to a scold.

[alya1989262]

Sooo... the only way to have a working relationship with an oppressive government is to give it ammunition to kill and torture its citizens? Okay!

[DeWayne]

Well, I guess the important point is who you call the enemy, those under occupation and occassionally slaughtering civilians within their own borders and homes, or the victim.

[SurrealPumpkin]

I missed the part where "dialog" became "giving ammunition to kill and torture".

[pat20ut]

So far the Obama record:

-Continued wars
-More debt
-More wasteful spending
-More corporate bailouts
-Higher unemployment
-Less transparency
-Flowery speeches that no one talks about the next day [expect on MSNBC to lowest rated network on TV]
-Change no one can see?

[Renifer]

http://www.wimp.com/thepast/
There is the source of everything that you just mentioned.
You are the party of NO. You want this country to fail. We have already rejected you, and are now openly mocking you and your hatred of good and kind, hardworking people.
Sit back and enjoy the ride. You are no longer in control. Suck it up. Be glad that we are fixing the destruction that you did with your vote for fascists.

[slmndow]

Hi sister u r wrong, and Obamas speech is freshing.
You want prez Obama to tell the Arab people how they choice their leaders...­noway

u r joking sister...e­very country have to simplyied their probem like many others.

[Waltfl]

What do you expect, Mrs. Sadeghi? Aren't you doing exactly what you criticized in your article? Addressing human rights issues from a western point of view? The US should sever diplomatic relations with Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, China, and most African States, because human rights are violated by their governments? It is not job of the US President to interfere with Egypt's internal issues. I am aware that the Bush Administration has done this in Iraq, by claiming "monster Saddam" has to be removed. What came out isn't worth repeating, and Iraquis are mostl likely worse off today, than 7 years ago. People of the world have to understand, that change will in most cases not come from outside. Having lived in Egypt in the 80ies, I dare to say, if there were free elections in Egypt right now, the outcome may be surprising to you. A majority may vote for islamists, and human rights matters may get worse. So how can the US contribute with improving human rights issues in a muslim country, if a majority there probably wouldn't even want it?

[alya1989262]

There is a difference between "stop supporting oppressive governments" and "boycott them", just fyi.

"Having lived in Egypt in the 80ies, I dare to say, if there were free elections in Egypt right now, the outcome may be surprising to you. A majority may vote for islamists, and human rights matters may get worse. So how can the US contribute with improving human rights issues in a muslim country, if a majority there probably wouldn't even want it?"

Maybe the majority doesn't know if they want human rights because they've never had them. If you don't want to meddle with our internal affairs, fine, be my guest. But what Obama's doing is giving the Egyptian government political leverage, as well as the funds they get from US aid, to continue its oppressive rule.

In short: Egypt's internal affairs not your responsibility? Then stay out of it--for good.

[Waltfl]

I am all there with you Alya. We should stay out, it's none of our business. Obama didn't go to Egypt to support the regime, he went there trying to get a message across, which was: "we (the US) are looking for a new beginning, and we are not per se enemies of the Arab world." I agree, it will give Mubarak leverage, but I also believe the positive impact of Obama's message is more important. Right now we (Arabs and Americans) are killing each other. That's a fact.

Do you really believe a critical message from the USA would be well received by most Egyptians? I don't think so, not even under normal circumstances. Now consider, after 8 years of Bush, the USA is not in a position any more, to lecture other countries about human rights. We can't even clean up our own mess. What is Obama supposed to say? "Don't put prisoners in secret prisons, have honest elections, and don't torture?" The whole world is going to laugh at us, pointing at Guantanamo, Florida, and Dick Cheney, who is on national TV every other day , telling people how great torture works.

[marko77]

"Having lived in Egypt in the 80ies, I dare to say, if there were free elections in Egypt right now, the outcome may be surprising to you. A majority may vote for islamists, and human rights matters may get worse. So how can the US contribute with improving human rights issues in a muslim country, if a majority there probably wouldn't even want it?" byalya1989
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_____

Despite the majority voting for fundamentalist islamists, it is heartening to have Barack Obama stating his view because millions recognize the voice of peaceful reason. Better that than the hateful message of fundamentalist extremists of all religions, which are also popular today.

[DeWayne]

I believe you would find in Middle East, Africa, South America, and other locations, the regimes and dictatorships did not spring up locally on their own, but were the product of Super Power (Corp-Gov's) involved 'subverting' even the electoral processes within these nations.

I have a webpage of older regimes and dictatorships, we in America at one time were to worship these as "Friendly Western Allies." If you are interested try my webpage:
http://rtpricetag.home.comcast.net/~rtpricetag/Dictators_menu.html

[DenverJJ]

Dear S-,
What he failed to do is to acknowledge that radical Islam is still at war with America and Americans and that it is difficult for the American people, as we are on the other side of planet, to distinguish the difference between the two camps. The larger camp lives in fear of the lesser one. When a moderate Muslim speaks against a radical, that person is marked for death in many countries. Even the leadership of these countries is afraid of them. American's do not fear violence and death for the sake of our freedom of speech. This commitment out lasts all others, but Muslim states are fractured by some clerics into dissarray and fear. The end of it, without some interdiction from moderates, is a flood religious anarchy that sweep through Islamic world and would make the French Revolution look like a Sunday picnic. This idea of freedom is a bridge that the muslim world has not crossed as a religion or civilization. I can understand your personal fear and the thin line you must walk to write something like this and not draw too much attention to yourself. Thanks for being one of the brave ones.
With my most profound respect and admiration,
DenverJJ

[alya1989262]

"This idea of freedom is a bridge that the muslim world has not crossed as a religion or civilization"

I never thought a single sentence could be so ignorant. Let me count the ways:

1. There is no one Muslim world. Muslim countries are many and varied and very different from each other.

2. Muslim civilisation is not homogenous, and varies widely between regions of the world.

3. There are Muslim countries that have thankfully crossed the bridge to freedom.

[Hoelder]

There is at least a discussion on contents. We are having these discussions because the event actually happened. History does really not care about Egypt or repressive governments, but a speech that will be a milestone. I do not think that security and it's inconveniences for one of the most important people is a sign of repressive regimes, I am pretty sure that security is pretty tight in Germany right now. Egypt is the mother of civilization with or without Mubarak. The speech will be judged on what it started and not on endorsements of current regimes. No matter where the speech came to life, there would have been something to critique. The important message was to convey respect. Peace can only be won with people not with postures of war and strength.

[Helzapoppin]

Although I don't believe this speech would have been the proper venue to address the concerns stated above, I do agree that these issues MUST be addressed. Sadly, however, the new paradigm since Reagan has been that business trumps human rights, and where the former once was fully contingent upon the latter, it is no longer on the radar. Add to that the fact that this country has lost all credibility in the arena of human rights, and any such public calls for improvement of those rights would be met with complete ridicule. So calling for democratic reform and human rights in this speech probably would have done more harm than good.