A Postcolonial Overview of the "Cairo speech"
Introduction
“SalamuAlaykum” greeted Barack Obama, the President of the United States, the world’s leading nation, while addressing more than one billion Muslims around the globe, during his Speech at the University of Cairo in June 2009. "I have come here to seeka new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world;"[1] His words were followed by frequent applause from his audience.
The Cairo speech evoked numerous political reactions. World leaders tried to analyzeUnited States' new position in the International arena; regarding the mediation process between Israelis and Palestinians, American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in relation to war against terror. Even intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, regarded the essence of the speech as political and practical and analyzed the President's perception of the Middle East, in terms of a political “act” rather than in terms of philosophy and ethics.
There is no doubt that the standpoint of a new president in the white house, at an era in which the United States makes great efforts to preserve its status as the world’s superpower and leader of war against terrorism,is more tangible than deconstructive observation of the hidden subtext behind the words. Nonetheless, the premise of this paper is that in Obama’s historical speech, beyond its apparent direct political meaning, lays inherent premises, which for years had been defining the world's
cultural balance of power. Specifically, these inherent premises define the cultural balance of power, between the USA – as the undoubted leader of the west and “Free World”, a Christian country in its nature - and the Middle East and Islam – which are different in their religious, cultural and political life perceptions. These inherent premises supposedly intensified after the TwinTowers attack, after which Islam was identified with terror.
In this paper, I will use postcolonial tools to analyze the world’s perceptions inherent in the Cairo Speech, which according to the Postcolonial theory, express the historic attitude of the west towards the east.In this paper I will also analyze another central factor- the speaker himself, Barack Obama, a complex character to measure with postcolonial tools:a black man, whose biography includes strong “black” elements as well as “white” ones, who rose to become head of the leading nation of the "white” world, as Postcolonial theories claim.
The main question that will be raised in this paper is whether Obama’s character and his American- Islamic reconciliation speech, indeed brings change, or rather returns to its initial cultural assumptions, which perpetuate the American and western superiority over the Middle East, not only from a political aspect but also from the cultural one. This paper will also question the relevance of Obama's "blackness" to his speech in Cairo.Walter Benjamin claimed that every cultural creation is a process of transcription of relationships in society.[2] Following this claim, we will examine the speech of the first "black" American President in Cairo last year.
The analysis in this paper will be based on three main thinkers: Frantz Fanon, one of the most prominent Postcolonial thinkers, Edward Said who defined the term“Orientalism” and HomiBhabha who established the “Hybridization” argument in relations between two cultural forces.
“New beginning”– Obama’s Speech in Cairo
According to "Orientalism" methodology, whoever approaches the orient places himself in comparison to it, and thus determines his narrative. Each writer has previous knowledge upon which he relies. He uses language in an organized way to communicate messages. Information is compressed into standard patterns which reinforce existing perceptions[3].
Obama aims to reformulate discourse structure between the United States and West, and the Islam and Arab world. In this framework he desires to address the main dispute issues, and demonstrate how compromises, based on common interests, can be reached. At the same time, Obama intends to change the prevailing power-based interaction, where one side applies military and economic power, while the other utilizes the weapons of terror and oil. Instead he aspires to implement interaction based on contradicting -ideas which pollinate each other. He relates to this speech as a first step to initiate dialog, not an obligating action plan. Obama’s speech at CairoUniversity on June 4th, 2009 was intended for the "other’s" ear, but an analysis of the writing templates and the selection of words, one can argue that the inherent concessions were oriental and postcolonial by nature, preserving the existing political and cultural power structures.
Choosing the Name and Place
The Cairo speech was titled “new beginning” and its purpose was to turn over a new leaf in relationship between the United States and Islam. Already at this point, the imbalance of the equation is noticeable. On one hand stands the United States – a Country, even though a world leader in the international arena, and one that is
considered the leader of the “free” world, still – just a Country. On the other hand, stands no particular country but an entire religion; one of the three most significant religions in the world.The background of this speech is the tension between the United States and numerous Arabic and Islamic countries. This tension exists due to American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan since events of September 11th 2001, tension from Iran’s nuclear expedited development, and due to known interests of the United States in the Middle East. Even so, alongside the USA and its struggles, stand various other countries that had sent their soldiers as well, to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who participate in taking sanction decisions against Iran. Obama allegedly does not allow himself to speak in other countries' name, nor on behalf of Christianity. still, as the head of the leading country of the West, he creates a form which empowers his culture, as he places it in the equation opposite to an entire religion, of approximately a billion and a half believers throughout the world.
Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, indicated that Egypt was elected as the location for the speech since it is “acountry that in various aspects represents the heart of the Arab world. In addition, Egypt is considered as a main factor of the peace process in the Middle East, and also receives substantial military and economic assistance from the United States."[4] When referring to the second part of Gibbs comments, it is evident that Egypt,even though located in the center of the Arab world, is in fact economically and politically dependent upon the United States. Thus raises the question: according to American perception- how significant is Egypt as "the heart of the Arab world", given its dependency upon the USA's superiority. Based on Gibbs comments, one can understand United States'start point, which perceives the Middle Eastas dependent on it, since the country that is "the heart of the Arab world" depends on it. Gibbs's comments suggest that the USA preconceives the
Middle East as dependent upon it, since the country at the heart of the Arab world is itself dependent upon it. This can indicate the oriental notion according to which, “the East” should be controlled either by research and development, or by military occupation, due to the need to characterize it and also due to the fear of it.[5]
Tradition vs. Progress
"I am honored to be inthe timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. Forover a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, andfor over a century, CairoUniversity has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress"[6]This was the opening paragraph of the speech and to my analyze a completely Orientalistic expression. Obama chooses to explain the reason for the location selected for his speech – University of Cairo, but does not forget to collimate it to a much more important institution- in terms of the Islamic culture - Al-Azhar. Al-Azhar is nowadays considered the most important learning institution of Sunni Islam, in charge of scholastic Islam and Arabic language training, in order to become religious judges in their countries. The institution is considered adjudicator of all religious aspects for Sunni- Muslims, who constitute as majority of Muslims in the world. Obama's collimation compliments the importance of the university, but at the same time, creates a characteristic Orientalistic observation by identifying the Islamic institution with “tradition” rooted for thousands of years (despite its great importance to the Islamic life today), whereas the university, an institute more familiar to the
West, where in resemblance to "western" parts of the world, scientific -universal disciplines are taught, is introduced as "progress". The motif of progress vs. tradition reoccurs variouslythroughout the speech. Another example exists towards the end of the speech: "Thischange can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of controlover our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities,those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, ourtraditions, and our faith, But I also know thathuman progress cannot be denied"[7]
Obama introduces fear of progress as if it's the cause of identity lost, but claims it is inevitable. The perception of progress as opposed to tradition, expresses the western diachronic perception of time, which uses the timeline to construct social order. The mere perception of time and attempt to implement a timeline between past, present and future in relation to other cultures is a colonial perception, by which the West perceives the East as if it lives in the past, whereas the present (progress) is presented as better. The perception of time as presented by Obama suggests that there is a need to take advantage of time, and not waste it on fears from the present, meaning,an un-synchronous perception which does not grasp, that different cultures have different timelines, and human progress does not necessarily require movement from one place to another but can also be a circle movement.[8]
Choice of Words
In the continuation of its first paragraph Obama reads in his speech: "I amalso proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a
greetingof peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamualaykum".[9]
Obama symbolically utilized Arabic words, which mostly won the applause of his audience. Some words were mere rhetorical gestures, used to add some colure to the speech. Other words dealt with religious termination, and were intended to emphasize his profound understanding of the problems Muslims face. For example, when he discussed the difficulty Muslim charitable institutions faced in the United States, he chose to use the Arabic word for charity “Zakat”. Use of these words was not common in Obama's speech, but they were perfectly places to show that he is familiar with the material and feels comfortable with the language. Usage of concepts, expressions and words borrowed from the dominated party's language, constitutes an entire world of cultural meaning. On one hand it can be perceived as an expression of integration, but on the other hand it can also be perceived as an expression of superiority. The dominator demonstrates to the dominated, that he is familiar with its language and can speak it. [10]
Fanon regards language as defining identity. "White" people talk to "black" people in a stuttered language assuming they can only stutter. On the other hand, "black" people attempt to excel at speaking the dominant language,as they consider it the means to social mobility. Fanon regarded language as a political and oppression tool, as violent as the military and the police, since the language contains an entire world of values.[11]
As far as speech style, Obama preserved his regular speech style yet was cautious with his words selection (for example, refraining from the word “terrorism”) Even though it is not clear how fluent in English were the listeners in the crowd, Obama preferred accuracy of words over crowd accessibility. We can confront this fact with his use of Arab words, as we analyze his rhetoric using Orientalistic tools.
As far as his vocabulary goes, we can say the key words in his speech are “on the other hand”. Obama’s message constantly transmitted openness and acceptance of the other, therefore he cautiously presented each standpoint from its two sides – the West and the Islam have had years of cooperation, but also of conflict. Iran is entitled to nuclear energy, but not to atomic weapon. Obama had adopted the vocabulary and narrative of the American liberal left party, where he had developed. He spoke without a blink of “the occupation” and of “the Palestinian aspiration for respect, opportunity and independence” and promised that America will not turn its back on the Palestinians. Obama called Hamas to “show responsibility” and recognize Israel's right of existence, and did not refer to it as a terrorist organization, but as a popular supported movement.
The word “respect”, another recurring motif, appeared in various contexts. Such examples are: "onebased upon mutual interest and mutual respect ... America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles, principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings". "I have come here to seeka new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world;""There must be a sustained effort to listen to eachother; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek commonground". "The rights of all God's children are respected."[12]
There is a paradox when referring to this motif. On one hand, I made an assumption that President Obama deliberately chose to stress this motif since he believed it was valuable and meaningful to his audience. This choice derives from an Orientalistic standpoint and is originated in the desire to speak in the audience’s language, in order
to clarify the message in the cultural context that the audience is familiar with. Nonetheless, this assumption regards the “honor” element as more important in the Arab world than in other places. Therefore I draw attention to the existence of this motif in the speech, but I am cautious to presume the reason for its existence, for fear of making a similar mistake to the one I am raising in my assumption.
Christianity vs. Islam
Following the analysis of the words selections and use of local language, Obama chooses to utilize in his speech many expressions from the Quran:"As the Holy Qoran tellsus, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.' That is what I will try todo , to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firmin my beliefthat the interests weshare as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive usapart." "The Holy Qoran teaches that whoever kills aninnocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, itis as if he has saved all mankind."[13]
Obama’s speech ends with quotations from sources relating to the three main religions: "The Holy Qoran tells us,'O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you intonations and tribes so that you may know one another.' The Talmud tells us: 'The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.' The Holy Bible tells us, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.'"[14]As a matter of principle, one can attribute the same Orientalistic meaning to the use of quotations from the Quranas to Obama’s choice to open his
speech with the “SalamuAlaykum” greeting, but at the same time one should pay attention to the rooted Orientalisticattitude of Christianity towards Islam. Christians faced difficulties understanding Islam since they assumed that Muhammad meant to the Islam the same as Jesus meant for Christianity and therefore they even described him as an impostor. Islam was not presented in itself but rather represented to the Christians during the middle Ages. Every Christian representation of Muhammad was created to serve an internal western need –he was perceived as an impostor, reckless, homosexual, a devious atheist and his mere mimicry symbolizes that Jesus is the great source everyone should follow.[15] It is visible that the appearing quotations from the Quran are indeed taken from the Quran but express values valid also in Christianity and in Judaism. This is emphasized in the quotation finalizing the speech in which Talmudic and New Testament cited quotation, deal with the same issue and written in a similar spirit. Thus, in the end, universality can on one hand eliminate the need for distinction between races and religions but on the other hand, can annul the need for uniqueness of one religion over another. Therefore, one can infer that by attributing to the Quran the same universal values, Obama aims to justify his true moral values and his superiority over his audience.