Obama's Speech at Cairo
I've just finished listening to Obama's speech at Cairo. There have been much ado about this speech, hailing its significance in the peach process between America and the Middle East, particularly the Muslim states. I don't claim to be an expert in politics, all the following are my thoughts after listening to the speech.Obama is a very clever and powerful politician. His speech, I believe, manages to send a message of friendship (political friendship) to the muslims in the Middle East, at least the non radicals. I think he has done a good job in pandering (for lack of a better word) to his audience and in positioning himself as a disinterested (not uninterested) America head-of-state. He doesn't come across as condescening, and in fact he knows how to use his ties and experience in Islamic Indonesia as a mean to endear himself with the audience.
Obama doesn't come across as condescending, especially in his justification and explanation of America's post 9/11 reaction and the Iraq War. I haven't really heard Bush's full speeches before but from the snippets and clips, hes sometimes he sounded as if Iraq deserved it. But granted, Obama has the benefit of a 20/20 hindsight, and is free from the load of American's anger immediately after 9/11.
For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
Obama also didn't come across as one taking sides, as seem from above. But, this being a speech targetted at the Middle-East, there was the expected heavier weightage addressing the muslims.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
And that was the public olive branch, and should Iran reject it, Iran would be basked in bad light by the non-radicals.
America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
This is a good save; accusations towards America after the Iraq War has been its imposition of democracy. Here Obama does not deny that they want democracy in Iraq, but he manages to not come across as exporting Americanism to Iraq, as radicals believe and rallies against.
That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
I think he is quite bold here, to be advocating religious freedom. I'm ignorant of the extent of radicalism among his audience, of course, but radicals would not take it well. Perhaps not even conservatives. But the moderates and the progressive would, I guess.
The best part that I love? He addressed women's right to education. My personal belief is that women's education is a huge step to combat abuse and the perpetuation of extremism like honour killing and forcing child brides to marry old men. Education widens the paradigm of women, let them understand that their interpretation of the Koran need not come uninformed and solely from mouths of extremist teachers. If women themselves do not understand what is wrong, men would have a freeway to perpetuate their insanity. So hoorah to Obama for advocating education for women.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Again, he was able to avoid sounding like he's pointing fingers at Islam for the oppression of women by mentioning other countries. He also does not come across as "if you are traditional, that's wrong" by saying (and I agree), that it is alright to adhere to traditional roles if that is their choice.
All in all, I recognise the Obama trademark of HOPE in this speech. His ending with a vision that calls for the transcending of past and working towards the future, the calling out of the youths to do their part, and the recognition of difficulties. These brings back memories of his speeches during his presidential campaign, and his bipartisan speech at his victory. If it was McCain, I honestly doubt his ability to carry the tone and inspiration of this speech, even if the words are the same. I must say, his connections to muslim blood or the fact that he is non-white helps - they are semiotic resources in deconstructing the image of a white American oppressor that Middle-easterns who hate America have all these years. That's why, overall, I think Obama is a very clever and powerful politician.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm going to say something my non-Christian readers may find controversial. Well, this is my blog, and the following reflects my opinion, and that is thoughts through the eyes of one who has certain beliefs in her. The following does not represent my church or the denomination I belong to.
Well, I would not have felt this way if not for the fact that Obama has always been reiterating himself to be a Christian.
Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)
I don't think that someone who is really a born-again believer will be able to say the last line without major cringing and inward wrenching. To place your Saviour and your God in the same position as prophets is not just wrong, it's blasphemous. (Again let me reinterate: this is my view as a Christian, whether or not you believe Jesus is God or if He is higher than Moses and Mohammed is your opinion. Freedom of religion, people, and I'm not imposing this view on anyone.) I also have problem with him talking as though he knows what God wants, and these are lines that are not biblical, like "when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be". Not really, 'cos the Bible says Jerusalem is for the children of Israel. (Again, this is my opinion and belief, you may choose to disagree.) This too, isn't biblical: "The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth." God's intention is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9), and repentence through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Imagine my disappointment with Obama when I hear him say things like that, not just here but some of his previous speeches too. But this only goes to prove that I must see politicians as separated from his said belief. None, in fact, should expect politicians to act like Christians just because they claim to be one. What I mean is, yes, if I know the stateman in charge of me is Christian I rejoice because I hope that he is really a Chrisitan and his faith will guide him in making good decisions for the people. But I must expect that as a politician he can either 1) not be a Christian but claims to be one. This is not common in SG but very much in America, where religion and politics are still heavily intertwined. Or 2) He needs to straddle the obligations as a politician in a secular state to give rights to and say things about other religion against what he has been taught. Whether he has therefore sinned is between him and God. What he is in real life needs to be judged on a wider scale by people who know him personally. All I want to say is, never expect a politician to be who he say he is. A politician is a mask which comes with great responsibility. When the mask is put on, one must be prepared to say things and do things contrary to his beliefs, and necessary so when one is in charge of an interdependent society of different faiths. It would be a different story if the state is a Christian state, and hence the Christian leader must therefore abide and act exclusively according to his religious belief. Just a side note: there is no biblical basis to form a Christian sate. That duty of leadership with exclusive religious obligation belongs to that of a religious leader, aka the Pastor in his church.
As one judging Obama's presidency, we must remove ourselves from judging his spirituality, only when we want to evaluate him as a Christian.
Lesson of the day? Don't be a politician. -.- I always use this analogy: Can you sit through a movie where your (insert loved ones, for e.g., mother) is being insulted, misrepresented or humiliated? I can't. And no one should say I must be able to, because that's my mother and I love her. Similarly, I cannot and I do not wish to be placed in a position where I see/hear my Saviour and my God, whom I love, being misrepresented, insulted and humiliated. Much less me being the one who misrepresents Him (like a politician does, and like how Obama does). So, lesson to myself is, don't be a politician.