Obama's subtle shift on Islamism

Posted By Marc Lynch Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - 2:23 PM Share

 I'm really not going to pre-game The Speech. But I do want to note that without making a big deal about it, President Obama has already introduced a subtle and potentially extremely important shift into American discourse about Islamism. In an interview with NPR, Obama offered these comments on Hamas: 

"With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the Quartet principles [referring to the United States, Russia, European Union and the United Nations] that have been laid out — and these are fairly modest conditions here — that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate, that you abide by previous agreements, that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals — then I think the discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.
 

And so, the problem has been that there has been a preference oftentimes on the part of these organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars or advancing their organizational aims. At some point though, they may make a transition. There are examples of, in the past, organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means. And I hope that occurs."

 On the surface, this simply repeats the long-standing position that Hamas must meet the Quartet pre-conditions. But looking at it more carefully, it suggests that Obama is prepared to adopt violence, and not Islamist ideology, as the key issue determining American attitudes towards such organizations. This may still pose an insurmountable obstacle to Hamas, at least in the short-run.  But it opens the door to engagement with groups like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which are Islamist but have clearly and consistently rejected terrorism and the use of violence. 

  This would seem to repudiate the arguments such as those offered by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that the U.S. should consider such non-violent Islamist movements as "conveyor belts" who "don't explicitly endorse violence but contribute to the underlying problems."  And it would seem to side with those, such as myself, who have called for disaggregating views of Islamist movements and recognizing their real internal differences.   We've come a long way from those dismal days when the President of the United States used the fever-swamp term of art "Islamofascism" in a speech.

  Obama's comment seems to signal a recognition of these important distinctions among Islamists and that the use of violence, not Islamist ideology per se, should be what matters.   Most Arabs already understand those distinctions --- for instance, an interesting new public opinion survey by Steve Kull's PIPA found that "64% of Egyptians express positive views [of the Muslim Brotherhood], 19% say they have mixed views and just 16% express negative views... only 22% think that it is still too extreme and not genuinely democratic."   Any push for democratic progress in Arab countries will have to deal with the reality that such non-violent mainstream Islamist groups are generally the most popular and well-organized political opposition forces.

 It will be very interesting to see if this comment signals a real shift in policy.  It is a very good sign that eleven Muslim Brotherhood Parliamentarians have been invited to attend the Cairo speech, and Mohammad Saad Katatni, head of the MB Parliamentary bloc, has confirmed that they will attend.  The Brotherhood has officially been publicly skeptical about Obama's visit and his speech, but they declined to participate in the anti-Obama protest organized by the once relevant Kefaya movement, and some of its members have signaled openness to hearing what he has to say and -- more importantly -- whether those words translate into deeds. Exactly the kind of conversation-starter for which so many have been looking. 

 

 

ZATHRAS

4:02 PM ET

June 3, 2009

An Interesting Commentary....

....and it reinforces my feeling that President Obama might better have chosen to make this speech in Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur than in Cairo.

One of our biggest problems with "the Muslim world" is the dynamics within it. Arab problems and grievances are Muslim problems and grievances; Indonesian or African affairs are just Indonesia's or Africa's business. This isn't a situation America created, or one Americans can transform by ourselves, but by not pushing back hard against it we make the problem worse. To the extent we are interested in the domestic affairs of Muslim countries -- any aspect of them, really, from freedom of the press to economic development to the accomodation of non-violent Islamism -- the predominantly Muslim countries of Southeast Asia have much more to teach the Arabs than the other way around. They have actually done all the things Arabs are still debating whether they can talk about.

Moreover, for all Obama's good intentions with respect to saying plainly in public things that many say only among themselves, choosing an Arab forum for his first major speech in a Muslim country is likely to make him reticent when it comes to certain important issues. Darfur, for instance. Now, I hope I'm wrong about this, but if Obama were to say anything about that subject in the capital of one of the Khartoum regime's steadfast Arab supporters it would be a great surprise -- because, again, of the tendency to think of Muslim concerns as meaning Arab concerns only.

Darfur is probably too touchy a subject for this site; at least it has been in the past. So look at another disadvantage of Obama's giving this speech in Cairo. Say it's a great speech, with great words, leaving Egyptians waiting, as Lynch says, for deeds -- from the Americans. If, after Obama's speech, no important Egyptian domestic policy changes, or some of those Muslim Brotherhood parliamentarians are detained by the Egyptian police, why should we not expect this to be interpreted primarily as a failure of American policy? And why is such an interpretation remotely in our interest?

A better relationship between America and the Muslim world would be a good thing, but the belief that every failing of Arab government and society has an American rather than an Arab source is not a sound foundation for such a relationship. Most of what we ought to be saying in that part of the world would be better said from a distance, and ideally, on this occasion, from a Muslim country that can serve as an example for Arabs to follow.

 

TCHE

8:01 PM ET

June 3, 2009

That indeed would be a an important (and welcome) change.

Much of al-Qa'ida's appeal lies in its sharp criticism of the moderate (i.e. non violent) approach of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Giving them the opportunity to make good on their promises to the people would certainly weaken that radical stance. At the same time actually bearing the responsibility could lead to a further toning down of the most extreme positions by these groups.

I am, however, doubtful whether the Obama administration will be able to pull through. The “Islamofascism” wing is quite strong and there'll most likely be lots of attacks from these quarters, something along the lines of “dealing with terrorists” and all the usual crap.

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More