Which Muslim country should the President visit first?
Ba-rock star in the Muslim world
By Sean P. Brooks
Where shall the healing begin? Let me rephrase, in which Muslim capital should President Barack Obama deliver his long-promised speech in his first 100 days to the over one billion believers of Islam?
As a partisan for then-candidate and now President Barack Obama, I will admit that the excitement of his victory may have blurred my objective analysis on occasion. However, I posed the above question to a number of individuals in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates during the first two weeks of January, when we were still in the much-hyped period of an American presidential transition. I was fortunate enough to meet government officials, journalists, and business and civil society leaders in these countries during a recent SAIS Middle East trip to the region.
The set of responses that I received in this admittedly unscientific and unrepresentative survey confirmed that indeed, Mr. Obama’s speech would be welcomed and considered important by many leaders in the Muslim world. Greater conclusions cannot be drawn, except to say that the President seems to have a number of potential intriguing settings for an address that will be judged primarily by its substance and not the choice of location.
Saudi Arabia?
For instance, Mr. Obama could take the advice that I heard most often and go to the birthplace of Islam: Saudi Arabia. To some individuals, this is the only option for the President if he wants to speak directly to the Muslim world. An addendum about the marginality of Indonesia – where most people expect him to go because of his time spent there in early childhood – usually followed this unequivocal recommendation.
Others pointed out the flaws in this thinking, which presumes that traditions of religious practice (i.e. the haj and the direction of prayer) still dictate the flow of ideas and discourse through the global Muslim community. This is not to say that Indonesia was a popular choice, only that for some Saudi Arabia was out of the question, given the intellectual and political restrictions that Mr. Obama would obviously encounter.
The UAE?
Some of our Emirati hosts naturally nominated their booming metropolises of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. They argued that Mr. Obama could endorse the astonishing economic development of these current success stories in the Gulf and present the technology, commerce, and prosperity of the Emirates as one example to which other Arab and Muslim countries could strive.
Despite acknowledging their doubts about replicating the Emirati model, they made a strong case for how the Emirates and other Gulf economies might serve as catalysts for regional change.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama might want to avoid questions about the role of democracy in the maturation of these societies. Likewise, he will no doubt be wary of following in the footsteps of former President George W. Bush, who spoke in Abu Dhabi just last year.
Baghdad or Ankara?
Finally, two political analysts made separate cases for Baghdad and Ankara. The political rationale behind the Iraqi capital is self-explanatory and probably makes the most sense for the domestic American audience, if Mr. Obama follows through with his promise of an expedient drawn-down of American troops.
Ankara carries with it enormous historical and political opportunities. As the Saudi analyst asserted, “They are Sunni, moderate, and geographically important.” With that said, the choice might upset some Europeans, depending on Mr. Obama’s position about European Union accession.
These responses also reveal the changing dynamics in the region. There was a time when Cairo and Damascus would have been on everyone’s list, but today only the Egyptians and Syrians – probably more out of pride and not conviction – will argue that their capitals represent prospects for change and hope in the region.
The challenge for Mr. Obama is to carry a message that atones for Bush’s mistakes but also affirms that America will not return to policies that condoned the political decay in the region over the last three decades.
Obama started this dialogue in his inaugural address stating, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”
These lines are imbued with the restorative tenor of Obama’s rhetoric that helped him claim victory in November. They must be combined with American policies that will help leaders in capitals like Abu Dhabi, Ankara, Jakarta, and even Baghdad consolidate their recent achievements.
In rebuilding relations with other parts of the Muslim world, the key challenge is how to create an operating environment based on mutual respect, while also challenging a dangerous status quo (of which America’s past policies are partially responsible).
No matter where he goes, it is certain that Mr. Obama will have the opportunity to raise the bar of expectations that Muslim societies set for themselves. Mr. Obama must therefore demonstrate clearly that the United States seeks to help those in Cairo, Damascus, Islamabad, and Riyadh to chart a new course. However, he must stress that this American commitment to partnership depends first and foremost on the decisions to reform and innovate made by leaders in these capitals.
Emphasizing the importance of internal rather than external dynamics and actors for change would represent a bold revision in America’s discourse with the Muslim world. Indeed, from any Muslim capital, Obama can show an appreciation for the challenges of reform ahead while offering steadfast American encouragement and support for revolutionary change.
Sean Brooks is a second year Middle East Studies candidate.
Filed Under: February 2009 • Opinion
About the Author: 