Obama Gradually Changes Course

CHICAGO -- President Barack Obama's speech to the Turkish Parliament on Monday, April 6, was another milestone in what appears to be his continuing attempt to steer the American ship of foreign policy in new directions. He made some important new statements and changes in style, while repeating some silly old bad habits and simplistic insults. If he intended to address the Islamic world and signal a more humble, realistic policy towards majority-Islamic countries, he gets high marks for intent and execution, and medium marks for substance.
He reminded us once again of three linked issues: The United States has serious problems with some Muslims and some quarters of the Islamic world; it is trying to acknowledge and redress those problems with a refreshing combination of courage, humility and honesty; but, it still suffers deep structural flaws in achieving this worthy goal. 
The most significant thing about Obama's speech in my view was the disparity between how he addressed all the tough issues that matter to Turkey -- EU admission, Kurdish relations, Armenian history, Cyprus, democracy consolidation, and South Caucasus states -- while only offering soft rhetoric and hollow generalities when speaking about American relations with the Islamic world. Specificity reflects seriousness, while generalities reflect hesitation.
Obama should be commended and applauded for tackling these issues to begin with, but he should be chided for resorting to simplistic nothingness in four areas. The first is his meaningless statement that "the US is not at war with Islam". He might be surprised to learn that neither is Islam at war with America or Americans. He would be much better advised to stick to the facts by noting that a very small number of criminal Muslims attacked the United States, and his country is justifiably fighting them and trying to bring them to justice. By addressing "Islam" as a protagonist, he recklessly transforms specific quarrels into civilizational, religious and cultural battles. 
His second mistake is to speak glowingly of respect for the Islamic faith and all it has contributed to the world, while always counter-framing his words in the context of terrorism and warfare. He should instead speak of the rights that individuals and countries expect to enjoy in a world governed by law and mutual commitments to sovereign rights. Muslims don't need an American president or anyone else to tell them they have a fine cultural heritage; they know that intuitively, and simply by living their faith and values. They want to hear from the leader of the world's strongest nation that he respects the rule of law that is applied equally, fairly and consistently to all countries, regardless of their religion. 
The third mistake he makes -- a genetic weakness for all American officials, it seems -- is that he frames the tensions between some Muslims and some Americans in terms of religious differences, rather than acknowledging that most criticisms of the United States in the Arab-Asian heartland of Islam reflect anger with US foreign policies. The problem is not faith, it's foreign policy - specifically American policies supporting Israel or supporting dictators and autocrats throughout the Arab-Asian region. By evading these core problems, he ends up slightly comically and unsuccessfully flailing for substitute issues to address.
The fourth weakness in Obama's speech and his general approach is to single out Iran as a potential menace for allegedly wanting to develop nuclear weapons, and chiding Iranian leaders like a school teacher talks to children. This totally negates and sidelines his remarks about wanting to deal with Iran on the basis of "mutual interests and mutual respect." If that were the case, he would speak instead about working with Iran and others to implement all relevant international laws and regulations to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while affirming every country's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
These criticisms of Obama's shortcomings should not detract from his commendable change in tone and direction from the horrors of the George W. Bush years. One intriguing new twist in his remarks was the insistence three times in one paragraph that Israelis and Palestinians both must honor commitments, change their ways, and make new moves to achieve the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not major new policy -- but it does seem like another small shift towards repositioning the United States as a credible mediator that seeks to work simultaneously for the rights and best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. Rarely has an American president spoken so clearly about both Israelis and Palestinians needing to change their ways to achieve peace.
We have here only vague hints couched in nice rhetoric, but they are intriguing hints that should be watched for signs of policies that affirm them. Large ships adjust their course slowly and incrementally. Obama turned the wheel a few degrees in Turkey this week.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.