Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Previewing the President's Middle East Speech (With Live Blogging and Reactions to Follow)
Ahhh, I remember the last time the president addressed the nation. Remember that? The whole "I have ordered Navy SEALs to track down and shoot Osama bin Laden in the head" address? I think we can all agree that was a great, great speech.
Today, the president is scheduled to deliver another speech. This one is on the Middle East, and I am neither aware of what the president will say nor sure why this speech is being given. I suspect this speech was planned some time ago in order to announce U.S. support for Arab self-determination -- which now includes military support to the rebels in Libya, a fresh round of sanctions against the regime in Damascus, and a package of economic and political aid to the people of Egypt.
The visit of King Abdullah this week, coupled with both the upcoming visit of Benjamin Netanyahu and some recent unpleasantness along Israel's borders, means the president will also be asked to address issues related to Palestinian self-determination specifically. The president will not want Netanyahu, in his address to the Congress, or other Israeli policy-makers, in crazy op-eds in the New York Times, to set the terms of the debate, so he will want to get out ahead and establish the parameters of the policy discourse.
That makes sense, but I suspect today's speech will be a bit of a mess because the president might try to do too many things with it and because expectations are now so high. Brian Katulis has gamely attempted to identify three goals around which the president might create a strategy for the region, and they all make sense. They also, though, highlight how difficult it is to actually come up with a coherent strategy for the region writ large. Although the Arabic-speaking world, at least, shares a common language and public sphere (to a degree, and thanks to media such as al-Jazeera), U.S. interests vary from country to country, making a one-size-fits-all regional strategy tough. Okay, so we support self-determination in Libya, Egypt and Syria. But why not in Bahrain or the Palestinian territories? Okay, so we will employ military force to effect regime change in Iraq and Libya. But why not in Syria or Yemen? These are questions Arabs have and to which they will likely not receive satisfactory answers.
I will be listening to the president's speech today with much interest and with very low expectations. I'll live-blog the speech, assuming I can get out of a meeting I have scheduled, and encourage you all to then check out the conversation moderated by @acarvin and our own @abuaardvark on Twitter (#MESpeech) after the speech.
Watch this space...
1143: OK, I just literally ran out of a meeting to live blog this thing and ... am now staring at a video of a briefing room. And John Kerry. And Mike Mullen. C'mon, already...
1149: @joshrogin: He's waiting for the Just for Men to dry #reasonsObamaislate
1155: Robert Fisk is apparently offering comment on al-Jazeera English. My friend @shadihamid writes, "I'm not sure if I like Robert Fisk's commentary on #MESpeech. He doesn't seem to understand how US policy works." Shadi, I think you meant to write, "I'm not sure if I like Robert Fisk's commentary on _______. He doesn't seem to understand how ______ works."
1159: Issandr el-Amrani (@arabist) writes, "Adherence to official US policy and internationally accepted solution (i.e. 1967) should not be big news."
1200: Man, this guy is really late. I've got $10 that says he's in Hillary's office right now with a pencil, a map and about three other people trying to draw out the borders of a Palestinian state, Mark Sykes style.
1203: @Todd_Zwillich: Advance team just realized podium isn't facing Mecca #ReasonsObamaIsLate
1206: Turn off your cell phones and pagers, everybody. (Who the hell still carries a pager?!)
1209: Lots of Arab ambassadors in the audience. What are the odds that one of the regimes they serve will fall by the end of the speech?
1211: White House aides are saying the president is late because they were making last-minute changes to the speech. "Strategy for the Middle East" doesn't seem like one of those things you want to be tweaking at the last minute, though.
1216: POTUS talking about how al-Qaeda lost the Arabs. Funnily, enough, I -- ahem -- wrote an entire chapter on this subject for this New York Times best-selling e-book.
1218: POTUS draws comparison between American revolutionaries and those in the Arabic-speaking world. Now he's talking about self-determination, political and economic.
1220: You can feel the strong influence of @abuaardvark on this section dealing with the new Arab public sphere.
1222: America to the Arabic-speaking world: "I'm not a witch. I'm you."
1224: Holy cow! I guess we really are all neo-conservatives now. Obama talking about how we cannot focus on stability -- we must support self-determination. I'll leave it up to you as to whether he sounds more like Woodrow Wilson or Natan Sharansky.
1226: "The United States opposes the use of violence and oppression against the people of the region."
1227: The United States supports "freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal rights of men and women, the right to choose your own leaders."
1227: Values > Interests; or, rather, our values are our interests.
1228: Now the president is talking about post-Iraq liberal interventionism and why we intervene where we can -- but why it's unrealistic to expect the United States to intervene everywhere.
1229: I wish I were as optimistic about Libya as this president.
1231: All of this liberal interventionist rhetoric is great, but as the president is speaking, his administration is slashing the defense budget, and the Republican House of Representatives is slashing our International Affairs budget. At some point, our aspirations run up against a smaller pool of resources available to policy makers.
1233: Strong words for Bashar al-Asad. Strong words for the regime in Bahrain, though, too.
1234: Holy cow, the president just pointed toward Iraq as an example to be followed in the region. How do other Arabs feel about that? My sense is that the Arabic-speaking world looks at the horrific maelstrom of violence into which Iraq descended in 2004 and thinks, "Uh, no thanks."
1238: The rhetoric about womens' rights and freedom to worship is great, but SAUDI ARABIA.
1240: Mentioning the destruction of Shia mosques in Bahrain is huge. That is going to infuriate the regime in Bahrain.
1241: Stabilizing and modernizing the economies of Tunisia and Egypt is where this speech goes beyond mere rhetoric. This gets as initiatives the United States can actually do, such as debt forgiveness.
1246: I just got the text of the speech and am skipping ahead: "The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."
1247: The only thing POTUS is saying about Israel is stuff U.S. presidents have been saying about Israel since, oh, 1967. Issandr is right: there is no news here. The president is not saying anything Presidents Bush or Clinton would not have said.
1252: Jeffrey Goldberg: "President Obama is a better Zionist than Danny Danon and Likud hardliners, who will bring about end of Israel through endless occupation." True. Crazy, though: Obama is not so much presenting an alternative to what other U.S. presidents have said but rather an alternative to what Israeli leaders are offering their people right now.
1257: Aaaaand, that's it.
QUICK REACTION: Well, that speech did a few things:
1) It delivered a very anti-dictatorship, pro-self-determination message that would have made Woodrow Wilson proud. The president deserves a lot of credit for boldly taking on the regime in Bahrain -- even going so far as to blame it for the destruction of Shia mosques in that country. Huge. Cynics like me, though, will note the president did not say the words "Saudi" or "Arabia" anywhere in the talk. Women not having equal rights? People not allowed to worship freely? No freedom of assembly? Yeah, that is U.S. ally Saudi Arabia more than any other state in the region.
2) In support of Palestine, the president committed himself to basically the same stuff that every other U.S. president has talked about. In support of Israel, meanwhile, the president both brushed back the Palestinians on bringing statehood up before the United Nations and expressed scepticism about the deal between Hamas and Fatah. This was an incredibly pro-Israel speech, and anyone who says otherwise is talking nonsense. Only an extremist like Danny Danon could whine about what the president said. I can't believe the U.S. media -- and I'm looking at you, New York Times -- is reporting the president's support for two states built along the 1967 lines as news.
I am off to the White House to get spun on the speech in a few hours and will have more comments later. Overall, though, I was underwhelmed and suspect most Arabs will be as well. But maybe the early analysis is right, and this speech was more aimed at a U.S. audience than at the peoples of the region itself.
Andrew, you have drank the
Andrew, you have drank the KoolAid for too long.
Obama has been polishing the backside of the Jewish lobby all week so he can come out to tell the Muslims how much he is rooting for them.
Let see....
US loves you and your oil.
US likes to hand out money. (or is that print lots of money)
BTW, lets make peace between the Palestinians and Isreal.
.......did I leave anything out?
PS....Lots and lots of military toys for all, but not guns...Hillary says no.
I'll be most interested in
I'll be most interested in how Obama spins his argument for continued US imperial action in the region in the face of clear rejection of such action by the people themselves.
RH
PS. Here's another critical issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/may/19.... Environmental changes in the region are likely to make US policy moot.
Still confused why Obama
Still confused why Obama would need to address the Middle East in any context (setting aside that the speech might be for domestic consumption). We're leaving Iraq. The issues in Af/Pac are local. Considering that the Saudis just handed out a $36 billion package to their people, they're not in a position to cut down supplies. Same goes for the other Gulf states where we have bases. As for Egypt and the Palestinians, we pay them, so if anything they're the ones that owe us explanations--like why are your current and future leaders mourning Bin Laden's death. Why is soothing Arab anger an American interest? Arab Spring=death of Bin Ladenism, according to all the experts. They're not in the position to try any embargoes, so why again do we care what they think?
I hope Barry O. re-thinks his
I hope Barry O. re-thinks his policy towards the Assad regime and the protection of the last sanctuary of Eastern Christianity in the region.
don't forget EASTERN
don't forget EASTERN CHRISTIANS in Syria!!!
"The issues in Af/Pac are
"The issues in Af/Pac are local."
The presence of al Qaeda in Pakistan is purely a local issue?
The prospect that the Taliban will once again control Afghanistan is purely a local issue?
The Middle East is important
The Middle East is important enough for the Obama administration to maintain, still, a small army in Iraq and to have intervened in the Libyan civil war. Periodic explanations from the President as to what he thinks he's doing are a small thing for the American public to ask.
I'll cut my left nut if the
I'll cut my left nut if the President mentions Eastern Christianity in Syria.
"Periodic explanations from
"Periodic explanations from the President as to what he thinks he's doing are a small thing for the American public to ask."
Compliance with the War Powers Act is a small thing to ask - as well as legally required - but apparently our HLS-grad President has decided to ignore that requirement in Libya.
Well, it's clear that we are
Well, it's clear that we are going to try an imposed solution to the I/P conflict. Long overdue.
http://www.sham.la/ (Syrian
http://www.sham.la/ (Syrian Restaurant near the beach)
I'll be watching the speech here, and eating FateH (in olive oil).
If Obama doesn't mention Eastern Christians, I'll stand up and start chanting,
"bil RoH, bil Dem, Nafdeek ya Bashar!!!"
Comment by Amicus on May 19,
Comment by Amicus on May 19, 2011 - 11:10am
Well, it's clear that we are going to try an imposed solution to the I/P conflict. Long overdue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are aware that virtually the entire region is an "imposed solution" as a result of colonialism and post-war occupations. We might be better off if we just stayed out of their internal business entirely.
Is Suzanne Malveaux half
Is Suzanne Malveaux half black or something?
Zathras--I'm all for speeches
Zathras--I'm all for speeches aimed at his constituents, and I added the caveat that my questions can be disregarded if the speech is for domestic consumption. My more general complaint is with the "But the Arabs will call us hypocrites!" school of commentary that seems to be so prevalent.
Al Qaeda isn't local (although I don't think their potential threat is worth what we're spending in blood and treasure, but that's for another time), but my point was that that conflict isn't really affected by events in the ME--although I guess you could argue Gulf money is now staying home to keep people happy, not being put into missionary Islamist outreach in South Asia, but that's pure conjecture. AQ's protected by the Pakistani government and the Pashtuns for reasons unrelated to the ME.
Iraq a sucess? Hmm, I wonder
Iraq a sucess? Hmm, I wonder what all the refugees think about that?
LOL! The 1967 borders? What a
LOL! The 1967 borders? What a laugh! A recipe for heartache and the Nakbah Redux.
So, Bibi gets what he wants,
So, Bibi gets what he wants, a confrontation between the US and Israel vs. the rest of the world. Oh well, will be interesting to see what happens when the human wave tactics get repeated every week after september. I wonder what the threshold of violence against civilians is for Israel? What happens when they march on the hilltop settlements? Is there any Israeli plan at all for the next 4 years?
We are long past the time
We are long past the time when a two-state solution would have worked. I note also that Obama referred to a "sovereign non-militarized [Palestine]." On its face, that undermines a sovereign, independent Palestine.
In short, a lot of nothing.
RH
Oh, and here is Nethanyahus
Oh, and here is Nethanyahus initial opening gambit: Legalizing three more illegal outposts. http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/19/on-eve-of-us-visit-netanyahu-okays-...
"POTUS draws comparison
"POTUS draws comparison between American revolutionaries and those in the Arabic-speaking world."
Reagan said the same thing about these guys, don't forget.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA
Oops! But one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, when it comes to politics.
The Arab youth movements, by sticking to non-violent resistance (with the exception of the fight for survival in Qaddafi's Libya) have found a way out of that trap. They've discovered that it's more politically effective to set yourself on fire, or allow yourself to be shot by police, than it is to blow up cafes and assassinate politicians.
The POTUS is still playing catch-up with the Middle Eastern youth - and no mention of that huge Saudi arms deal, was there?
http://www.live5news.com/story/14674376/us-quietly-expanding-defense-ties-with-saudis
"The forging of closer U.S.-Saudi military ties is so sensitive, particularly in Saudi Arabia, that the Pentagon and the State Department declined requests for on-the-record comment and U.S. officials rejected a request for an interview with the two-star Army general, Robert G. Catalanotti, who manages the project to build a "facilities security force" to protect the Saudis' network of oil installations and other critical infrastructure. - Robert Burns, AP, May 19 2011"
Check out this gold chain given to Obama by King Bling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxVWckPZX0A
Bibi says: "F*ck off".
Bibi says: "F*ck off".
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/19/netanyahu-swiftly-rejects-obam...
Watched this in Cairo with
Watched this in Cairo with some young, politically astute Egyptians. The overwhelming response was "meh."
Did I mention their elation about aid coming in through the IMF? There wasn't any.
One guy did request that I get a job with the State Department and work at the embassy here so I can expedite his visa application.
Cheers from Agouza!
Does not really matter if
Does not really matter if Obama said 1967 or 1940 boundaries. Everyone knows there is no agreement.
It is going to be negotiated.
Obama's speech was about status quo, even if his words said it was not sustainable.
It is about keeping them talking, not shooting.
There is really not too much that anyone from the outside can do, it is up the people in the ME. Still, I think that it would be a great idea for the Palestinians to go shopping for land in Libya. There is more room to grew, there is access to the sea, oil in the land, and the Libyan opposition can use the help. Israel gets more land too.
PS....Why is it that the US is always giving money to people that do not need it? Libya has lots of oil. Israel has a strong GDP.
1. How do you negotiate with
1. How do you negotiate with people who are implacably committed to your destruction?
2. Agreement to any sort of settlement is tantamount to a death sentence for the negotiators.
3. Flapping tongues will keep the outside observers happy and promote the flow of aid to all parties.
4. Rushing the fences with hordes of noncombatants might be a viable tactic.
5. This sort of imbroglio causes people who think linear to throw their hands up in the air, while the other guys are hunkered down for the long haul.
6. Curious to see how long it takes the Arab spring to flower into summer.
7. Will the middle class be violently put down and the peasantry settle back into the traces?
8. Can't name many pro-democracy leaders over there. Know the names of quite a few hard men who will do what it takes to either maintain the status quo or institute arrangements that suit themselves.
9. Remember back in the sixties -my salad days. Folks were fond of saying that the world had turned a corner.
When I got around it, looked pretty much the same as the other side.
V/R JWest
I might have some comments on
I might have some comments on the actual speech later. Right now I've only heard the introduction. But just listen to the blatant campaign speech by Clinton. She takes credit for her people getting all the real work done. Thanks and welcomes the President for visiting. That's an overt play for dominance. This is my house. You're welcome, as a guest.
Note how Hilary lays out U.S. policy towards the middle east in her introduction. "Democracy, blah blah blah." She just established policy. Okay, so we're done here. Oh wait - the President is speaking? Why?
Obama's first words point out that Hilary works for him. He uses her first name, not her title. She has a lot of frequent flyer miles? True, but "she has a lot of miles on her" has a double meaning as a somewhat insulting age reference. "I count on Hilary every single day." Translation - you work for me, beeotch.
"She will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation's history." Therefore she's not going UP - as, say, President?
I wonder if these opening remarks were scripted or if he came up with them on his own? When your supposed subordinates are making such blantantly public power plays, there's not a whole lot you can do.
As usual, there is no such thing as "foreign policy" for a universalist representative democracy. There is only domestic politics, projected on the world stage. How much of this speech will show Obama attempting to reign in State and preserve his position as lead policymaking figurehead? Clearly a major factor in "middle east policy" is a struggle for power between State (and Clinton) and the White House (and Obama).
Question: Could President Obama "accept Hilary's resignation" right now? Legally he can fire her, of course. But politically, could he do so and have a chance at re-election?
Is the State Department running the White House?
I wonder if campaign season will see some kind of Clinton scandal being "leaked" to the press.
I have to take exception to
I have to take exception to Obama's phrase, "The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago."
No, they universally did not. They were granted "independence" by Great Powers which no longer wanted to deal with the mess of an overt colonial structure. They immediately became clients of the American led "United Nations" and have been ever since.
Here's how you "win independence". (1) Field an actual army. (2) Capture strategic military resources. (3) Decimate the occupying colonial military forces. (4) Declare victory. (See, for example, Gustav Vasa.)
"1247: The only thing POTUS
"1247: The only thing POTUS is saying about Israel is stuff U.S. presidents have been saying about Israel since, oh, 1967. Issandr is right: there is no news here. The president is not saying anything Presidents Bush or Clinton would not have said."
Nope.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/29/sullivan-goldberg-and-zakar...
ContentionsSullivan, Goldberg, and Zakaria Walk into a Bar . . .Rick Richman 05.29.2011 - 7:58 AM
On November 11, 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary of State Clinton issued a Joint Statement, following a “friendly and productive exchange of views.” Andrew Sullivan, Jeffrey Goldberg, Fareed Zakaria, and Joe Klein have asserted that the November statement is a smoking gun, proving Netanyahu manufactured a confrontation with President Obama over his May 19 Middle East speech.
At Time magazine, Klein wrote that Obama’s speech had employed the “exact formulation” from the November statement. Zakaria wrote in the Washington Post that the November statement shows “Netanyahu’s quarrel, it appears, is with himself.” In his Atlantic blog, Goldberg wrote it “fairly definitively proves that the whole contretemps over Obama’s radical new analysis of the Middle East crisis was ridiculous.” And Sullivan overtopped his Atlantic colleague, writing the statement confirms that Netanyahu is a “liar.”
The key portion of the November statement consisted of two sentences: (1) a U.S. description of the competing Palestinian and Israeli goals, and (2) a commitment about Israeli security requirements in any future agreement:
The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement. [Emphasis added]
Compare the above statement with Obama’s May 19 statement:
We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
Obama’s May 19 statement did three things. First, it made the “Palestinian goal”—quoting the November statement verbatim—the position of the United States. It endorsed a state “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” and asserted this formulation would establish “secure and recognized borders” for both Israel and the Palestinian state.
What the Palestinians mean by “the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps” is actually the 1967 lines, with insignificant changes. Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO’s Washington envoy, asked on May 22 if it meant Israel might retain “some of those large settlements,” responded:
Our position is very clear on borders. We said 1967 lines with minor modifications. We absolutely are not envisioning the land swap that the Israelis have been proposing—the five, six percent. We are talking about as little, as minor as possible of a land swap to accommodate certain interests and changes. But we are not envisioning a large land swap.
Thus the Palestinian “goal” set forth in the November statement, which Obama elevated into a U.S. position, is the 1967 lines with swaps representing “minor modifications.” It is, for practical purposes, simply the 1967 lines.
Second, Obama adopted the Palestinian goal without a requirement that the Palestinians (i) recognize a “Jewish state”; (ii) accept borders that “reflect subsequent developments” (code words for major settlement blocs); (iii) agree to borders that “meet Israeli security requirements” (code words for defensible borders); (iv) concur that Israel security requirements be “fully taken into account” in any agreement; and (v) sign an agreement that “ends the conflict.” All those conditions, set forth in the November statement as the Israeli “goal,” are critical to Israel. Obama insisted on none of them.
Third, the manner in which Obama endorsed the Palestinian goal—not consulting Netanyahu, giving him only a few hours notice, ignoring his objections, announcing the new position without waiting to meet with him the next day—was obviously intended to send a signal not simply to Israel, but to the European leaders he was scheduled to meet the following week, who would appreciate an American president endorsing the Palestinian position while overriding Israeli objections.
These guys want us to believe Obama was just repeating the November statement and Netanyahu manufactured a crisis. It’s a joke, right?
Add your comment