On June 4, 2009, newly elected President Obama delivered a seminal speech in Cairo called “A new beginning” . The timing, location, and the text in this speech illustrate a lot of things about the Obama doctrine. So it is a good place to start.
Let us begin with the location ~ Cairo was not chosen by accident. Cairo holds a special place of importance in the Muslim world, which President Obama is clearly well aware of. He hints at this
Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress
President Obama knew that he would be heard all over the Muslim world with this venue. He came to offer a reset of America’s relations with the “Muslim” world (in reality, he means a subset of the Muslim world; as he later explains). He acknowledges the current problems...
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.
… and describes the issues bred by this conflict
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
...and goes on to offer a reset. A new beginning.
I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.
These are fine words. At the time, people said that these words represented the best of the “Obama doctrine”. They come from Nobel laureate Obama, as the antithesis of Bush. Except, as is now clear Barack Obama did not really mean those words ~ in the sense that he knew that the Arab world was not ready to reciprocate those words. He hints at this himself
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning … Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash.
What I think he is referring to are the doubts expressed by many, and doubts that he himself harbors (as I describe later) that the Middle East is not ready to reciprocate. He refers to these doubts in the Cairo speech itself...
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."
What are these words that we say behind closed doors ? For starters, it is clear from recent reporting by Jeffrey Goldberg that Barack Obama holds a very decidedly negative view about the “Muslim” world (again, at least for the Muslim world that is limited to the middle east only).
Obama, in my reading, does not—contra his right-leaning critics—suffer illusions about the pathologies afflicting the broader Muslim world. If anything, his pessimism on matters related to the dysfunctions of Muslim states, and to the inability of the umma—the worldwide community of Muslims—to contain and ultimately neutralize the extremist elements in its midst, has, at times, an almost paralyzing effect on him. The president has come to the conclusion (as I outlined in my recent Atlantic cover story, “The Obama Doctrine”) that the underlying problems afflicting Islam are too deep, and too resistant to American intervention, to warrant implementation of the sort of policies that his critics, including his critics in foreign-policy think tanks, demand.
He delivered a speech in Cairo that was meant to reset relations with Muslims, but was also meant, he later told me, to challenge Muslims to cease manufacturing excuses for problems of their own making. He told me recently, in reference to the Cairo speech, “My argument was this. Let’s all stop pretending that the cause of the Middle East’s problems is Israel. We want to work to help achieve statehood and dignity for the Palestinians, but I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.”
So, even as President Obama spoke about a new beginning in Cairo, the Barack Obama who grew up all over the world, and who has relatives all over the world, knew about the likely impact of his words: it would be ignored.
[Notice something else here ? President Obama understands the world a lot better than his critics. Indeed, he appears to understand it better than most of his supporters give him credit for ~ at least, that was the case for me. When he first delivered his Cairo speech, I despaired at the naivete of hoping for a new beginning just because it is being offered. The reporting by Goldberg helped me understand the context a lot better.]
In the Cairo speech, President Obama speaks about the importance of speaking the truth.
That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
In his Cairo speech, he goes on to list several accomplishments of Islam. No doubt this pleased the listeners. But it did not encompass “the truth”, at least not the entire truth that President Obama referred to earlier in his speech. He left out the portions that he later described for Jeffrey Goldberg. There was nothing about how the hatred for Israel, or the West, or anyone else, might be holding back the Muslim world in the Middle East. Those words, which are definitely uttered by Barack Obama behind closed doors, were not uttered by President Obama in Cairo. Instead, he made some general remarks about America’s greatness
Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."
These are fine words, but Barack Obama is smart enough to know that his assertions are not an issue here. The Muslim world in the Middle East does not doubt that America has done good things elsewhere (such as during WWII). The issue is that a large portion of the Muslim world in the Middle East believes that it is fundamentally prejudiced against Muslim interest, and has always acted on that. The “truth” that should have been uttered is “you guys need to give up your irrational hatred, or else you will forever live in the current mess”. The closest he comes is in the line I have bolded out below.
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.
President Obama did list out some (to what the listener must have been painful) truths for his audience. These include America’s bond with Israel, the 9-11 attacks, woman’s rights in the Muslim world and others.
And yet, if you look around today, America’s relationship with the Muslim world has only been reset for the worst. Ignore, for a moment, the fact that Syria is a mess. Or Lybia. Or Iraq. Or Pakistan. Or Egypt. Or that Obama inherited two wars, and will leave his successor with three. Consider the following:
So what happened to all that hope and change ? What happened to the new beginning ? Is it all Obama’s fault ? How has Obama evolved ? The analysis below is mine ~ I have no particular insight into any of this.
Why have things worsened ?
Let us first consider why we are where we are.
Things have progressed in the negative direction because that is what the times demanded. They would have worsened, regardless of who was President, and which doctrine we had been following. To a large extent, you can say the same about President Bush, and his Iraq policies as well. We in the US (along with our leaders) tend to suffer from the Carly Simon syndrome (as Jeffrey Goldberg put it) ~ we tend to think that everything is about us. Iraq is a mess because President Bush screwed it up. Syria is a mess because President Obama screwed it up. And so on.
In reality, the changes happen for solid underlying reasons, with America mostly as a bystander. This is something that President Obama recognizes better than most leaders ~ indeed, he appears to understand this better than most of our Presidents (including Democratic ones).
Let us consider Syria ~ a small country ruled by a dictator from a minority sect. It was bound to implode at some point. Or Egypt ~ the light of the Middle East for several millenia, but sans a native ruler from Cleopatra to Nasser. Or Saudi Arabia ~ a country with primitive practices, but which won the oil lottery and was able to stave off any need for modernization. Or Afghanistan ~ the birthplace of Zoaraster, and thus of all modern religions.
All of these countries have one terrible thing in common ~ the need to deny their pre-Islamic history and heritage, no matter how glorious it was. Pakistan, for instance, was home to one of the oldest civilizations in the world, but you wont hear them making that claim. The Pashtuns, in Afghanistan, are likely descended from Alexander’s Army that he left behind, but they themselves claim to be descendants of a figure named Qays, who received Islam directly from the Prophet Mohammad.
Most people in the Middle East, even the educated and scholarly types, will tie themselves in knots trying to pretend away their pre-Islamic achievements. You will hear them lay claim to algebra, and all the Islamic architecture, but not for having invented the devil himself (as Zoaraster did). Or about the judgement day (“end of days”, again from Zoaraster).
And there is one simple truth ~ the harder you try to pretend away your history, the more difficult it is for you to solve your real problems
So why have things worsened ?
To answer this, you have to first consider what made the Islamic world great. In fact, what made that region, even pre-dating Islam, the premiere source of modernity in the world. Why was Zoaraster born in Afghanistan, and not in South Sudan, for instance ? Why did 1001 Arabian Knights originate in Arabia and not in India (even though some of the stories clearly have an Indian origin). Why was Christ born in Bethlehem, and not in Rome ?
And the answer, in my opinion, is the silk road.
In those days, most trade happened via the silk road, which crisscrossed Asia (and Africa), with major crossroads in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Arabian peninsula. And the economies of those regions, along with their political health, fluctuated with free trade. As the traders traveled back and forth, they carried goods with them, and also ideas. And in those amalgamation of ideas, new religions were formed. The Daiva and Ashuras of Zoarastrians became Devas and Asuras in India. And new Gods were created in the process ~ largely on the basis of the primary goods that were being traded. The God of frankincense, for instance (one of the many Gods that Mohammad campaigned against). Christ was born of migrant parents, who were visited by travelers from the east that carried with them the primary goods being traded that day.
And when you shutter the silk roads, all that comes to a halt.
Building the new Silk Road
Perhaps the most important foreign policy initiative undertaken by President Obama (at least in my view), is his attempt to restart the Silk Road, as part of a U.S. New Silk Road initiative. As part of those initiatives, the US is trying to broker a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline. The US is also trying to broker agreements, whereby countries progressively reduce barriers to trade amongst themselves.
In 2011, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), helped create the Almaty Consensus, a "Regional Cooperation Framework" among Central Asian nations. Its projects include reducing trade barriers, developing export capacity, and supporting World Trade Organization (WTO) accession for Afghanistan.
These initiatives include the Cross-Border Transport Accord (CBTA) between Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan, the CASA-1000 electricity grid, which would allow Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to transmit hydropower electricity to consumers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Transit-Trade Agreement to allow Afghanistan to export goods duty-free into Pakistan. The United States committed $15 million to the CASA-1000 project, but its role—in contrast to China’s tens of billions of direct investments in Central Asia—is largely to facilitate these efforts diplomatically.
The attempts to bring Iran back onto the family of nations can be put into the same category. He has likewise tried to broker similar agreements between India and Pakistan (and between Afghanistan and Pakistan). In my opinion, this is taking the long view of the situation, and is the only correct approach.
And, it should be recognized that President Obama is not alone in this. The Chinese also recognize the importance of restarting the Silk Roads, and are making very important contributions in that regard. In fact, you can say that the Chinese investments may outstrip US investments in this regard.
Driving down oil prices
One significant factor holding back the Middle East is Oil. Specifically, oil that can be tapped under their sand, and sold in international markets at very large profits. In turn, this profit is used by the regimes there to buy off their own people, and to foster conflict in neighboring regions. Countries with oil (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and various breakaway Soviet republics, etc) have no incentive to trade, and to reopen the Silk Roads, if they can sell oil at large profits. And so, when the Silk Roads are shut down, the suffering is endured primarily by the countries that dont have oil (Afghanistan being the prime example).
Countries that have oil are led by regimes that have no incentive in recognizing their own mistakes, and understanding their own history.
So how do you change this dynamic ? You have to drive down Oil prices!
And President Obama got lucky in this regard. He won the fracking lottery. And he (and Secy of State Clinton) used this bit of luck to promote fracking technologies worldwide. In turn, this helped drive down oil prices worldwide. I believe this was how they managed to win the required concessions from Iran.
And it appears that President Clinton will inherit this luck. Not via fracking (because that will run it’s course very soon), but via renewable energy technologies and via the adoption of electric technologies for transportation.
So how has the Obama doctrine evolved ?
As you can probably tell from my analysis above, I was not a big fan of President Obama’s speech in Cairo. It had a 0% chance of having any effect, and was simply not worth the risk (of getting people worked up, and then having dashed hopes). However, from his own analysis (as revealed to Jeffrey Goldberg), it appears that the himself was not expecting any substantive effects from his speech. It appears that the Obama doctrine always viewed the region in terms of the need for free trade, for bringing Iran back into the comity of nations, of driving down oil prices (so that oil stops altering the Middle East dynamics). And he has diligently worked to push that as best as he could.
Unique amongst all our leaders, I think President Obama does not suffer from the Carly Simon syndrome.
I believe President Clinton will push these policies along further. Fracking will cease to be a useful tool for driving down oil prices. But she will use renewables, and electrified transportation. And she will use the opportunity this affords to try to open up cooperation between those nations.
At least, that is what I hope for.
Funny that I am ending up with the Obama/2008 campaign slogan.