THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

(Cairo, Egypt)

________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University

Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. 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. I’m grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I’m also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

Well deserved applause, for a charming opening, with just the right greeting at the end.

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. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Again, a laudable candidness on conflict and cooperation, and a refreshing willingness to speak of the discontents of colonialism and the Cold War. The privileging of “historical forces” over current policies, however, seems to be a little too fatalistic; many would argue that current tensions reflects policies more than historical forces, and hence are more amenable to wise statesmanship.

Also, the highly relevant insightful remarks on colonialism and the Cold War are not followed up in the substance of what is recommended later. The currently imposed pattern of governance in Pakistan (effectively, a vassal state) and Afghanistan and Iraq (occupied territories) is expected, under the emergent Obama doctrine of persistent engagement, to evolve into a system of American protectorates, in which all the ills of colonialism will be perpetuated. And, if tensions in the past have been fed by colonialism and exacerbated by competition (with the Soviet Union), then how can these tensions be reduced in these protectorates, and why will normal political processes not be undermined by America’s competing not with a foreign power but with domestic political groups that are –rightly or wrongly — not to its liking?

Two points should be made about the last remark. First, the oft-repeated suggestion that Muslims are opposed to Modernity is overworked and on closer look, mostly wrong. Ever since Napolean’s arrival in Egypt (just around 200 years before Obama) most Muslims have been quite open to Modern artefacts and institutions; such opposition as there has been, has been not Islamic, but anti-colonial nationalist in nature. The error of past American thinking has been to employ the words Muslim and Islamic as, to employ Aristotle’s distinction, definitions rather than descriptions of their referents; this needs to be corrected. Second, current Muslim perceptions of Western hostility to Islam and Muslim traditions has nothing to do with “sweeping changes brought about by modernity and globalization” and everything to do with the speech and behaviour of Christianate leaders, military forces, and peoples.

Finally, given their importance in this irruption of Christianate violence, there is really a need to pay attention to words. To begin with Islam (literally, “submission” and figuratively, submission to the will of God, a personal, individual, act of will) must be differentiated from Muslims, the people who engage in this act (among other acts), and whom Mr. Obama is addressing. Islam does not bleed; Muslim do. As for “the West” — a direction — the double adjective Christianate (meaning Christian and Christian-like) applied to persons, communities, nations, and states, seems to be a better, more adequate description.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

The systematic vilification of Islam — the manufacture of Islam-ism, to take the place of communism, etc. — started not with 9/11 but with the Iranian Revolution, 30 years ago [see here].

In identifying “violent extremists” Mr. Obama has taken a step forward from his speech in Ankara where he identified “violent ideologies” (the previous administration’s code word for Islam) as the enemy. Any study of the individuals – all, without exception – who are accused of having perpetrated violence against the US and her military allies will show that: (i) the “extremism” that they exhibit is anti-imperial nationalism, a very Modern, not Islamic, reaction to “imperialism”, also an extremism or sorts; (ii) they are all educated, and educated in a European language (a qualification possessed by a very small minority of those described as “Muslims” — and none, not one, went to a madrasa); and (iii) most are only incidentally Muslim (in terms of observance).

Finally, there is a suspicion that “violent extremists” is a code word that refers only to some arbitrary set of those defined as Muslims, and not to what the words mean in ordinary language. If this is the case then, as Mr. Obama suggests in his speech, we should call a spade a spade and find a more appropriate description of those to whom this term refers. If not, then it should be clarified whether the Americans would apply the same term to non-Muslims, for example Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative gang, when they reject moderation and advocates violence? For if white men are definitionally exempt, then “violent extremists” just becomes a phrase to fight with, devoid of any substantive content — a usage that is neither respectful, nor conducive to better understanding.

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.

Never a truer word was said. But more than talk will be needed to restore trust — something that takes years to build, and a moment to destroy; also, something that is impossible to build between occupying armies, and occupied populations.

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. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Always hopeful despite experience, Muslims, almost without exception, will welcome the call for a new beginning. What could have been strengthened in this speech, however, is more candour (despite the promise), and greater acceptance of some guilt, and some evidence of remorse, for the assault on the dignity, faith, life, freedom, and property of millions of Muslims, as a collective punishment for the crimes of a couple of dozen individuals (of not fully known identity, motives, and provenance). This omission weakens the foundation on which a new beginning can rest.

Again, on words: “America and Islam” suggests either that America is a faith (which some suspect it is!), or Islam, a country; neither conducive to better understanding. Would it not be better to speak of America and Muslim countries or the Muslim world (all referring to places); or Christianity or Liberal Humanism, and Islam (all referring to spiritual worldviews)?

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there’s been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. 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.” (Applause.) 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.

This — to try to speak the truth — is a laudable effort, in which persistence is bound to be rewarded with success. Naturally, quoting the Qur’an, appropriately too, is a nice touch. (White House staff: note how Qur’an has been spelt for some decades now.)

But this promise, to speak the truth, raises the stakes considerably; Mr. Obama will now be judged not as a mendacious politician, but as a morally upright fellow human being who, if caught lying, will find it hard to reclaim the trust he has asked for and received.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

The intent should be appreciated. Yet, to put this in context, here is what Mr. Obama said to Cleveland’s Jewish Community at the Landerhaven function hall in Cleveland on 24 February 2008: “I have never been a Muslim. …the school that I attended in Indonesia … was not a madrassa but was a secular school in Indonesia. Where I attended for two year prior to coming back to Hawaii… My grandfather who was Kenyan converted to Christianity then converted to Islam, my father never practiced he was basically agnostic and so other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child I have very little connection to the Islamic religion.”

Even so, the new narrative is welcome. There is no contradiction between Mr. Obama’s two statements: he has very little connection to Islam, yet he has been exposed to Muslims, and this exposure convinces him that Muslims share more with than differ from other human beings.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

Again a laudable acknowledgement of the obvious, that is frequently avoided. However, “Western civilization’s debt etc.” would have been more consistent with the pluralistic spirit of the speech, to allow for non-Christianate ways of life to also be considered civilised. (Also Muslims, not Islam;difficult as it is to say it, it can, and should be said.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

This is brilliant. Yet many would say that the presidency of George Bush put a boot through the America of Jefferson and Adams. To wit, Rumsfeld’s Bible quotations on presidential briefs [also here].

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

With reference to partnership, again, Muslims, not Islam; Americans, not America! (What does a partnership between Islam and America mean?) And, “based on who Muslims are” not “what Islam is”; Islam is just one part of Muslims, just as Christianity (or Liberal Humanism) is only one part of Christians (or Moderns, or Christianate-Moderns) — so if the intent is to move away from religious conflict, it would help not to essentialise individuals by a single act of faith, important as it may be for them.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) 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.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, famously, holds a slightly different view: “The great advantage of the Americans is that they have arrived at a state of democracy without having to endure a democratic revolution; and that they are born equal, instead of becoming so.” American seeking to “confer legitimacy” on “American-crafted democracies” (what oxymorons!) would do well to reflect long on what this means for their current enterprise.

Whether born of revolution or not, among many other things America is a self-interested empire, even if it is not the crude stereotype of one.

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

There is an irony here: much is indeed made of this fact, but only because so little is expected of America – in the area of overcoming racial prejudice and hate.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab [to reassure the neo-conservatives and the French, Mr. Obama mispronounced it: hajeeb] and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

This is an extremely rosy picture of Muslims’ lives in America, but it is peripheral to the concerns most Muslims who live permanently in Muslim countries; and the others know better. The important point is where Mr. Obama takes it: that most human beings, including Muslims, share the same goal.

Yet, without denying Mr. Obama the right to feel good about his country, the fact is that most Americans of the Muslim faith feel extremely insecure in America and many go to extreme lengths to conceal their identity; increasingly, when they respond that they are Americans, they are questioned further about where they are originally from, etc. Women are afraid of wearing the hijab. Many face discrimination at work. All fear praying in public, a religious obligation (like going to church on Sunday), despite constitutional safeguards. They are subjected to numerous indignities specially at airports but also at other public places. No Muslim citizen or tourist has the courage to take a photograph of a public monument; and if he finds himself by mistake in the hunting section of a department store (where there are guns), or an aisle in the computer section where there are flight simulation games, he makes a speedy exit to escape the hostile eyes of “white” shoppers! And when they complain, the Police refuse to record their complaints as hate crimes, insisting instead on classifying them under a different heading.

These are the facts; perhaps understandable given the trauma, fear, and anger of blue-eyed Americans, but nevertheless the facts, that American Muslims whisper in their homes and which the president of America should know, whether he proclaims them or not.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a potentially dangerous view. Interdependence is a fact; but it should not be used – as it is – as a case for dependence (and its flip side, imperialism).

Thus, while the national interest of the “core” countries may lie in closer (military and diplomatic)”engagement” with the “peripheral” countries; the periphery may be better served by a policy of selective disengagement — to wit, Malaysia’s experience during the 1997-1998 East Asian financial crisis. Will America’s embrace permit this? Not likely.

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. (Applause.)

Certainly this is how Europeans have written their own history and that of the people the colonised. The rejection, then, of American exceptionalism by Mr. Obama is most welcome; realistically, however, he is swimming against the tide of American thought, opinion, and deeds in saying this, and while we wish him luck, we would be wise to make contingency plans.

On words, again, Mr. Obama no doubt realises “religion” — an Enlightenment word to refer to Christianity — entails a Church, the cocoon from which the European State was hatched (later transported to the colonies), and with which it was perennially in conflict in Europe. Strictly speaking, then, Islam (certainly Sunni, but also Shi`ah Islam), lacking a church and privileging practice to the near exclusion of dogma, is not a religion, it is a faith and hence cannot be said to have been at war in the same sense as the Church-State wars of Europe — States, governed by Muslim princes did go to war, but the raison d’être of these wars had to do with raisons d’état, and not dogma or doctrine.

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

This, surely, is Mr. Obama’s favourite expression: to speak as clearly and plainly as he can!