On June 4, President Obama gave a much-publicized speech at the Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo, Egypt, to an audience of 3,000. Obama’s speech was most striking for the contrast of its tone to that of the Bush administration.
|
Obama also talked about his own personal ties to Islam through his father and having lived as a child in Indonesia. Obama even referenced the copy of the Quran that Thomas Jefferson, one of the “founding fathers,” had kept in his personal library.
On Iran, Obama acknowledged “the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” To say that the United States “played a role” in the 1953 coup is an extreme understatement, given that the CIA planned, funded and implemented the coup. Still, it is a significant admission from a U.S. president.
Obama expressed some sympathy with the Palestinian people, saying, “The Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” Of course, given Israel’s crimes against Palestinians for decades, there is sympathy for Palestinians across the globe.
To say “Palestinians are in pursuit of a homeland” is particularly misleading, given that Palestinians are either living in their homeland or have been forced to leave it as a result of U.S. and Israeli aggression. What the Palestinians are in pursuit of is driving back their Zionist occupiers and oppressors. Still, even acknowledging a “legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own” is significant for a U.S. head of state.
Obama also repeated his demand that Israel freeze the building of new settlements in the West Bank. Again, the fact that a U.S. president makes any demands of the Israeli state at all, even an extremely modest one that the United States has never pursued in earnest, is the signal of a modification in U.S. policy.
Behind the policy shift
In the aftermath of the overthrow of the Soviet Union, U.S. imperialism, the sole superpower, saw an opportunity to reverse some of the gains made by the formerly colonized world in the post-World War II era. Now, the United States no longer had to worry about a confrontation with the Soviet Union while launching a campaign of invasions, occupations and regime changes.
The map of the world, the Middle East in particular, was to be redrawn in the interests of U.S. banks and corporations. Deprived of the possibility of receiving aid and assistance from the socialist camp, oppressed countries with independent states were seen as incapable of surviving the imperialist onslaught. The United States saw little need to appease the peoples of the oppressed world. Brutal military force and threats of the use of that force were seen as sufficient. The Bush administration and the neo-conservative grouping of ruling-class ideologues represented this approach.
The bulk of the U.S. ruling class and its politicians had no moral problems with this approach. By and large, all major groupings of the ruling establishment, Democrat and Republican, went along. This is evident by the enthusiastic support of both parties for the invasion of Iraq. The problem, for the ruling class, was that this approach did not work. It did not produce the intended result.
Rather than conquering more markets and resources for imperialism, instead of propping up more client states, militarism and criminal wars led to intensified resistance against imperialism in oppressed countries.
By the end of the Bush regime, the United States could not boast of a stable client state in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran, as an independent state, was strengthened, as were resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine, led by Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, U.S. client states in the Middle East, while still standing, became increasingly worried about their survival, given the intensity of popular rage against imperialism, Zionism and the compliance of those client states. With the leftward shift in Latin America in one country after another, the defeat of the Bush regime was complete.
Throughout history, oppressors have maintained their rule not through force alone but through a combination of force and deceit. Whereas the neo-cons relied primarily on brute force, the failure of their approach has brought about the re-emergence of deceit, also known as imperialist diplomacy.
President Obama represents a new policy in the Middle East and beyond in that there is more emphasis on diplomacy and misleading propaganda. This is real change, but the change is in approach, not in objectives pursued.
We are likely to see more disagreements and possibly open conflicts between the United States and the state of Israel. But this new imperialist policy is not about sympathy for the Palestinian people, respect for their right of self-determination, or concern for their well-being.
The United States has greatly benefited from the services of Israel in its suppression of all movements for independence in the Arab world. This is why Obama called the bond between the United States and Israel “unbreakable.” But from its formation, the state of Israel has been an expansionist state. U.S. imperialism does not specifically benefit from Israel’s expansionism, although it has largely been willing to go along with it because of Israel’s strategic role in U.S. policy.
Israel’s expansionism has now become a liability for U.S. imperialism, particularly considering the strain it puts on other U.S. client states—for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Obama administration wants to get a “peace” process around a “two-state solution” started. Such a “peace,” as envisioned by the Obama administration, is designed to create a false hope among the people of the region, while stabilizing the dominance of U.S. imperialism, with Israel as its lynchpin.
The same goals as Bush
If there were any doubts about Obama’s approach really pursuing imperialist goals through a softer approach, his statements about Iraq and Afghanistan should put that to rest. Reiterating his support for the invasion of Afghanistan, Obama stated: “We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity.” Obama ordered a troop surge of 20,000 into Afghanistan beyond the numbers of troops in that country during Bush’s seven years of occupation.
On Iraq, repeating the Bush propaganda line that “the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein,” Obama disregards the fact that over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. occupation. Having claimed to be an anti-war candidate, Obama nowadays states his opposition to the Iraq war in an increasingly nuanced way. “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice.” What has Obama done to reflect his opposition to this “war of choice?” He has “ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August.” This was part of the policy already worked out by Bush and General Petraeus—even the timetable was not significantly altered by Obama.
After years of intense racism against Arabs promoted by the U.S. government and media, Obama promises “mutual respect” and equality to the Arab world. But the sincerity of his promise can best be measured by his own reference to U.S. history: “We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal.” Arabs and other oppressed people around the world can expect the same equality and respect from the U.S. government that African slaves received from the “founding fathers” to whom Obama refers.
