Obama, Race, and Arab Opinion

Our colleague Brian Edwards has written an excellent piece for The Huffington Post considering Arab responses to Barack Obama's election:

Chicago -- The U.S. election is over, but Al-Qaida finally threw down the race card. The organization's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video last week comparing President-elect Barack Obama to an 'abd al-bait, or "house slave."

It's easy to dismiss such extreme rhetoric as ineffective, especially because we have been frequently told about the enthusiasm that Muslim populations, especially in the Arab world, have for Obama.

But this mischaracterizes the ways in which non-elite Arabs are talking about Obama since the election. Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's chief ideologue, tapped into the ambivalence many Arabs are expressing about the President-elect.

The massive circulation of American culture through the world--fueled by digital media--means Middle Easterners feel familiar with and sometimes ownership of American culture and ideas. But Arabs also are deeply affected by the 2000 U.S. electoral debacle and the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. From Fez to Cairo to Tehran (non-Arab, but similar in this respect), people are guarded and cynical about being hoodwinked yet again by our attractive ways of communicating a message, especially "democracy." They see Obama's rise as barely believable.

Fully cognizant of this, Al-Zawahiri reran a play from the Soviet playbook during the cold war. The Soviet leaders routinely referred to the oppression of African Americans to counter the attraction that American culture - particularly jazz - had among the Russians.

The al-Qaida video included film clips of Malcolm X distinguishing between "field Negroes" and "house Negroes," in which the latter - in this case Obama -- are said to be more dangerous to their brethren, because they were loyal to their white masters.

For al-Qaida, many young Arabs' love of hip hop, the American cultural form that attracts international audiences, is a force to be reckoned with. The Arab engagement with American hip hop is complex, and Arabic language hip hop has become popular both online and in public concerts.

Many Arabs identify with oppression by white America, while others see the outward expressions of luxury (the "bling" worn by many American rappers, for example) as a sign that all Americans occupy an economic status far from their own. Since the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, young Arabs have become much more skeptical of U.S. intentions, even as they consumed American culture more and more.

Last week when I was in Cairo, arriving just after the election, many who heard me speaking Arabic asked me where I am from. My answer was "medinat Obama," Obama's city. Many smiled in recognition. When I asked Cairenes - working class, middle class, students, writers and intellectuals -- what they thought of the U.S. President-elect, most replied with a telling word: "Menshouf." We shall see.

The feeling toward American culture and people are another matter. "Americans are good, it's the government's policies that are bad," says Mohammed, a young Arab in the old part of Cairo. When I ask him about Obama, he brightens. "Obama shows just how remarkable a democracy America is. We wish we could have something like it. We need it in Egypt," he says. "A black man, whose father was a Muslim, without power and money, could rise to the top. That shows how America really is."

But when I asked Mohammed whether he thought Obama would be good for the Arab world, there was that word again. "Menshouf," he said. "I think it doesn't really matter who is the president of the U.S. The policies are the same. It's a new person, but the same country. Bush, Obama, the same," he said. I heard it all over Cairo.

While Americans opposed to Bush administration Middle East policies over the past eight years could still put trust in the American political process, those who grew up in autocracies, monarchies and dictatorships have less reason to trust democracy, having never experienced it.

It is this distrust that al-Qaida is trying to capitalize on. Even if most Arabs disdain the terrorist organization, the injection of the race card is a savvy, if offensive, move.

In Mohammed's menshouf there is hope, of course. It means that this transition and the first 100 days in the Obama administration will be critical in the Arab world. Obama's ability to excite a generation of Americans and his new-media savvy put him in a perfect position to inspire young Arabs to expect something from America beyond business as usual. That would be a real break in the Middle East tradition that we could all support.

Panic! The Iran Bomb!

Geez, I go away for a few days and the world falls apart. First, Al-Qa'eda starts calling President-elect Obama a "house Negro".

That, however, is a close second in the Run-For-Your-Lives contest: Number One is the bomb that Iran is going to drop on us.

This lead paragraph from Thursday's New York Times:

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The reporters remind us, "Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons." "Experts" were trotted out to assure, "[The Iranians] are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option.” So....

For President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.

Well, I have to admit that this revelation upset me a bit. It's going to be hard to enjoy the Tivoli Gardens and the National Museum when I'm watching the sky for nuclear annihilation. Even more upsetting, however, is the realisation --- on closer reading of the story --- that this report is closer to panic than analysis.

Two paragraphs after proclaiming the imminence of the bomb, the article drops in:

Several experts said that [amount of low-enriched uranium] was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

Hmm....that might be significant, especially if the reader can make the effort to link it to the minor details --- five paragraphs later:

American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon.

A reader from Birmingham adds:

It's tiresome to see this continual alarmist reporting on what really are routine, benign matters. And what's particular crazy is the claim that Iran almost has enough low-enriched uranium to produce one bomb. Such a bomb would have to be tested. Then there would be uranium for zero bombs.

I hope people don't take such reporting seriously.

Me, too. Otherwise, I might confuse the Christmas lights here for signs of our imminent doom.

Another Day, Another Debate, A Better Occupation?

Just emerged from a debate at the Copenhagen Business School with Dr Timothy Lynch, co-author of After Bush on "US Foreign Policy is Good for the World".

The two hours before more than 100 staff and students didn't change much in my position, and I think it's safe to say that it didn't shift Dr Lynch. It did highlight, however, both the efforts of the Bush Administration over the last eight years and the questions over what changes an Obama Administration might make.

I hope that it might have shaken up assumptions amongst at least a few in attendance, especially the thought that American power always has to be at the centre of our considerations about intervention and engagement. I say with particular respect to Dr Lynch's following comment about the US invasion of Iraq.

Dr Lynch admitted that the American intervention had not gone well. The problem, however, was not that it did too much but that it did too little. The US should have gone in with more troops and more force, planning for a prolonged occupation and turning Iraq for some time into a "51st state". Thus the lesson --- which I presume applies to Iran and Syria --- is not that the American Government should reflect on the Bushian regime change experiment but that it should try again in a bigger and better fashion.

I'm happy to be corrected if this paraphrase is wrong. As it stands, I find it a disturbingly eloquent critique of how future US foreign policy could be "good for the world".

Al-Zawahiri Slams Obama

I guess someone forgot to tell al-Qaeda's no. 2 that the president-elect is a secret Muslim.

It's That Clinton Woman...

On another thread, Simon T has picked up on Ewen MacAskill's headline in The Guardian of London: "Clinton to Accept Offer of Secretary of State Job". So, in the spirit of proving that I'm only 2-3 steps behind the news:

MacAskill has apparently got an inside source but little else: the Clinton lead is only the first four paragraphs --- only the first two of which offer any signficant information --- of a much longer article focusing on Obama's meeting on Monday with John McCain.

That's not to say that the story isn't possible, even likely: the spur for the coverage in The New York Times is Bill Clinton's weekend declaration, “If [Obama] decided to ask [Hillary] and they did it together, I think she’ll be really great as a secretary of state,” and confirmation that Obama advisors are reviewing Bill Clinton's finances and international activities (for possible conflict of interest issues, not illegalities, immoralities, etc.).

The story, however, is still in the realm of speculation, built around whispers and winks. The lack of public statement gets turned into yet another confirmation that the appointment must be happening. As James Carville, Bill Clinton's former spin-meister, spins it this time, "A silent phone’s sometimes as much of an indication as a ringing phone."

Yes, there is drama in the possibilities but, for now, they are overshadowing significant developments. Say, for example, the rest of that Guardian story. The Obama meeting with McCain is a singificant and shrewd move by the President-elect to work for both the symbolism and substance of Republican support for his foreign policy. The McCain who existed before the Presidential campaign --- the one who pushed for limitations on Government "enhanced interrogation", for example, and who has called for the closure of Guantanamo --- would be a big asset for the Obama Administration. As the Republican Party goes through its self-critique, the GOP's key players will be in the Congress, and any bulwark against the red-meat Republicans who still want to inflict punishment on Democrats (and Russians and Chinese and Iranians and "terrorists") will be useful.

Speculate on what might happen? Sure. But one eye on what has happened is even more useful.