Obama's Public Diplomacy Corner: Big Symbols, Limited Interaction with Muslim World

Darrell Ezell writes for EA:

On 4 June 2009, President Barack Obama announced in Egypt that he had come to “Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”. Fulfilling his Inauguration promise to extend a hand to the Muslim world, Obama stated his administration planned to seek a new way forward “based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

With Obama proposing this progressive policy, Americans, as most of the Muslim world, were confident a broad strategy would follow. Instead, a piecemeal approach to engaging the Muslim world has taken place.


Indeed, to a degree, this administration’s approach to interaction with the Muslim world resembles outreach under the Bush administration. Most of the outreach strategy of Assistant Secretaries of State like Charlotte Beers and Karen P. Hughes strategy revolved around listening tours with elite audiences and a bold secular agenda on Education, Science/Technology, and Economic Development.

Mindful of the many setbacks under Beers and Hughes generated by an overreliance on symbols, one might imagine this administration would grasp the importance of assessing their strategy in order to avoid complications. Instead, It appears the Obama administration has lapsed into the same problem, with those symbols standing in for direct interaction with Muslim communities.

Those of us who take this process seriously comprehend that to effectively restore relations with Muslim communities, equal attention is required at two levels. The first level focuses on government-to-government interaction, which includes restoring executive relations with predominantly Muslim countries of interest. The second level emphasizes direct interaction with Muslim communities at a grassroots (or people-to-people) level.

While the Obama Administration has taken the correct steps to make engagement a top priority on its agenda, unfortunately, its approach is imbalanced. Since Cairo, this engagement has been primarily directed to restoring communication with elites rather than with Muslim communities. With this imbalance, PD symbols try to mollify Muslim communities until a broad strategy is developed::

*Reinstating existing cultural exchange and PD programs directed primarily at Muslim youth and women;
*Appointing Special Representative Farah A. Pandith and Special Envoy Rashad Hussain;
*Recurring visits by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Muslim countries; and
*Promoting America’s secular vision to the Muslim world

While PD symbols are often effective in launching engagement, in recent years they have ineffective in communication with the Muslim world. Hence, a more sustained effort is required.

Regardless of how many PD symbols this administration decides to implement, recognizing and incorporating religious perspectives is vital to an enriched engagement. Real dialogue must occur at the grassroots level, incorporating the aspirations and perspectives of religious leadership and civic activists into the administration’s foreign policy vision. Integrating this important dimension will require Obama quelling political fears in Washington toward the religion of Islam. Rami Khouri reminds us:

The best and worst in American attitudes towards things religious and international [are] clearly visible. The negatives on display include: how serious the engrained negative perceptions and ignorance of Islam and Muslims are among the American population; how simplistic and blind the government can be when addressing the interplay between religion and foreign policy; and, how persistently resistant the American political and cultural elite are to acknowledging that US foreign policy -- and actions by its ally Israel and friendly Arab and Asian autocrats -- play a major role in triggering defiant and often violent responses from Arabs and Asians, who often have no means other than religion to express themselves.

A broad White House and State Department strategy is necessary. This means rethinking Washington’s current approach to interaction, which has yet to incorporate the dynamics of religion and communication into the process of engagement.

Some State Department officials will argue that a host of cultural exchange and PD programs exist that “reach out” to religious networks. Unfortunately, many of these programs are often limited to elite perspectives which overlook an engagement of religious leadership which may be opposed to America’s foreign policy. Finding common ground begins with U.S. officials recognizing communication and practicing social dialogue with allies and foes alike in the Muslim world.

Unless this administration takes the dynamic of communication and the impact of religion in foreign policy seriously, its lapse into reliance on PD symbols will soon be irreversible. Below are four reasons why those symbols will be a hard sell this time around:

First, the impact of emerging religious-based perspectives cuts against America’s secular PD symbols.

Second, the Muslim world is mindful of the damage caused by the 2005 Hughes agenda that exposed an administration less interested in listening and more concerned with projecting its world view within Muslim communities.

Third, reliance on symbols is less likely to aid in restoring what Hama Yusuf acknowledges as the U.S.-Muslim world trust deficit.

Last, an executive-to-grassroots approach is less effective in reaching a common ground with 1.3 billion Muslims. Ensuring a more sustained effort that begins at the grassroots and moves upward is more likely to assure President Obama’s vision on a new way forward.

Comments

[Dave]

This article is a fine and interesting read. As an American Christian, however, I have reservations with this approach. Us Christians must be aware of the dangers of the political pressures in such a dialogue movement. Christians should not offer themselves up as pawns to powerful governments, whether Western or Muslim, seeking purely political advantage. Muslims may affirm the unity of religion and state, but Christians should steer clear of that manipulation. The consequences could be VERY bad, putting churches in the Muslim world in even more danger than they're already in, governments could possibly reshape the theologies of the Western churches. It will only create confusion among evangelicals and the mainliners. Western governments should simply continue to provide funding for Christian organizations to pursue inter-faith dialogue on their own. The World Council of Churches has been engaging with the Muslim world for decades.

[Bill]

Scott,

Same old problem that like Bush, Obama, is finding that puritnically speaking Islam does not respect democracy. In fact throughout much of the Islamic world we are not only viewed as a threat for our awful actions(ie Iraq) but simply because of our embrace of secular law. One also has to take into context the view Islam has of the other. It is best demonstrated in how Islam unlike any other world religion divides the world by believer(Dar al Islam--land of peace or Islam) vs non Believer(Dar al Harb--land of war.) Heaped onto that is the clear negative predisposition their scripture places on the non Muslim. It is sort of hard to get along if the other doesn't view you as an equal. Some may view this as overly simplistic. However, when one looks to foreign relations between Islamic states and those who follow other faiths the predominant description has been the term advesaries throughout history. This is not true for most Muslims today but it is the view their scripture and the ideologues who control the Islamic world do hold. When you take all the aforementioned into context, espcially Islam's clear rejections of democracy, it is easier to predict how they will deal with us.

The power brokers want to deal with us but you won't find the dictators or theocracies wanting us to deal at a grass roots level. Democracy simply put is a threat and thus the impass. Some Islamic groups will feign interest but as we saw with the Islamic revolution in Iran it was only temporary. Once the Mullahs grabbed power they liquidated all the secularists who wanted democracy--they were a threat to their Islam. Today you have the Muslim Brotherhood doing the same but rest assured they would do the same. One only needs to look the words of the MB founders and how they hated democracy as we understand it in the West to see this. It is why the MB is often described as the incubator for most of the modern Jihadists movements.

I know this is bit harsh and not PC but as I tell everyone the central impass with the Islamic world will be relgiously based. One trully needs to read the Quran, a Hadith source, the Sira, and pay attention to the divisive rhetoric coming out of Mosques everday. Does not mean that we need to improve our approach but we also need to take into account we will be damned if we do or don't simply because we are unbelievers. A perfect example of this was when we pressed the issue in Darfur in which 2 million have died since the early 90's. The response we got was "it's an attack on Islam" and quickly followed with what about the "real genocide" in Palestine. Don't you find it odd how such a humanitarian disaster can be ignored by the Islamic world? Don't you find it odd the Islamic world can rightly protest Iraq but you could hear a pin drop when Saddam killed hundereds of thousands? The common denominator has always been the "infidels" involvement and was best summed up by a Muslim Slave from Darfur I met through a relief project--"If only we could get the Jews involved then maybe someone would pay attention."

In summary the mistake we have made is to try to "export" our democracy to the Middle East. It won't work simply because it has "secularism" tied to it. It won't work for the Dictators because it has "freedom" tied to it. We need a hands off approach that means militarily getting out of the region. Does not mean we should be isolatinists but instead move or foreign policy to one of engagement to ensure the best harmony we can expect. We should really focus our efforts on promoting education. With knowledge comes freedom and as we have seen in Iran it often leads to democratic movements. Won't ever be what we term democratic but is better than what is in place. Eduction will also be a powerful tool allowing the Muslim to throw of the shackles of religious fanaticism and the tyranny of dictatorship. Thus as we did when the Soviets fell in the end we need to pull back and let them work things out themselves. The wild card will as usual be the huge energy sources in the region!

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

God I need I need that edit funciton back--no wonder I always flunked english because of my grammar and typos!!! :)

[Catherine]

Hi Bill,
Since last summer when I discovered this site, I've noticed quite a few of your posts repeat the themes in this one above, and I think you've also made the following observation more than once before: "One also has to take into context the view Islam has of the other. It is best demonstrated in how Islam unlike any other world religion divides the world by believer(Dar al Islam–land of peace or Islam) vs non Believer(Dar al Harb–land of war.)"

So seeing this come up again, I couldn't help but recall an article by Nir Rosen that Scott linked to in the first week of March. The article takes someone else's op-ed to task, but it makes several points (starting from the sentence"Karsh claims that Muslims view themselves as part of the House of Islam and the rest of the world as part of the House of War.") that could also be directed at what you frequently say about Islam and muslims. Obviously only you can say if "the shoe fits", and I would be curious to hear your response.

And don't get mad - this is also proof of the fact that I read all your posts! :-)
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/03/its_not_about_i/

[Dave]

Quote taken from Catherine's link -- "Opposing Western Imperialism is not the same as opposing infidels."

********

But there is something to this. In the Palestinian case, I believe what we have here is something that parallels the Asian experience in the mid 20th century -- that of co-opting an ideology/religion and using it for nationalistic purposes. Liberation movements in Asia operated under the communist cloak -- China, Indochina, Korea, etc. Palestinian liberationism/nationalism uses Islam for that same purpose. There are numerous examples for Islam -- the Muj. in Soviet-controlled Afghanistan, the Moro people in the Phillipines, Al-Qaeda's fight in what is perceives as Western puppet governments in the Arab world - uniting the Ummah, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front

[Marie]

Has anyone even thought of the extremely important PD tool in reaching the grassroots in the Muslim world via international broadcasting? Unfortunately, the hallowed tradition of reaching the vast public through radio/TV broadcasts has been frittered away by the Broadcasting Board of Governors which "manages" U.S. international broadcasting. Radio Sawa which supplanted Voice of America Arabic to the Muslim world is devoted mostly to pop music which hardly qualifies as a mirror of our country's rich cultural heritage. Al-Hurra TV has a dismal record and reaches a very small percentage of viewers in the Arab world. Hearts & minds are not won by symbolic gestures and speeches by high administration officials. That happens when you establish vital communication via uncensored news and information to target audiences and become a window for them to the outside world, different opinions and traditions Voice of America did that exceedingly well for 60+ years but unfortunately, no thanks to the BBG, that important function has been diminished.

[UN Reform, Women – Grass]

[...] Obama’s Public Diplomacy Corner: Big Symbols, Limited Interaction with Muslim World | Enduring... [...]

[Bill]

Catherine,

Thank you for your kind response. As for being mad how I could I be for simply rebutting me. I actually encourage it because it means someone is paying attention. As for the article "It's Not about Islam & Judaism, It's About Anti-Colonialism, Territory, Liberation, and Lives" there is truth to it. However like most it trys to disconnet the religious component which is why I bring it up. The reality is these are very real concerns but in my mind often used as excuses more than everything. They are not all excuses for the Palestinians but more so for the Islamic world as a whole to always echo whenever called out on something. Note how Iran continually uses these "excuses" to deflect. Also note how the Islamic world often terms things in terms of consipiracy, threat to religion, and in general categorizes the other the enemy so often.

I say they are excuses because:

1) Colonialism: Islam is inherently colonial and the proof is the fact the territory they colonized was never given back(ie North Africa, Turkey, Pakistan, and any number of other places.) By in large the west gave up the terriotry without a fight while the Islamic world had to be pushed out of Spain, India, and Eastern Europe by force. In addition did you find colonialists tyring to "christianize?" No yet the Islamic territories were Islamasized. The difference is in terms of relevance relating to timming--Western colonial times were much sooner thus it plays to our collective guilt all that much easier. Islamic colonialism while around as late as the 1800's was occured much further back thus the disconnect.

This arguement also loses some of its power when you consider the fact former colonies like India, China, South America, and the Phillipines all have moved past this and do not bring it up. They don't bring up this excuse but instead embraced the world and did not use it as a crutch to claim victim status over a 100 years later. Simply put if this was universally true we would have more than the Islamic world at our throats.

2) Imperialism: Ha Ha quite funny because Islam itself is imperialistic when given the chance. Again they never gave up the terriotry without a fight and numerous times tried to conquer Europe. Some will claim economic Imperialism and to an extent they have an arguement but again are we to blame for their economic failures. While the West embraced technology, education, and basic science the Islamic world largely rejected it. The reality is the "economic superiority" of the West was achieved because we believed in the ability to change man's future while the Islamic world is still trapped within the confines of predesitiantion(ie Allah willing.) Sorry but I can't be blamed for the Islamic world's depedence on infidel know how because they continually refuse to invest in themselves. China, Japan, and India were all economically dominated by the West but not so today because like the west they chose to invest in themselves.

I would also draw notice to Islam's mandate that all must submit to Allah. Is that in itself not Imperialistic? Do you find the West making statements akin to Rome will be taken, Europe will be conquered by Islam through the wombs of our mothers, that the White House will fall to Islam, and that all were originally born Muslims only to be corrupted by their parents? No and the real proof is the West has the power to be Imperialistic but in large does not practice this. Simply put we have the force yet do not use it to its fullest extent--if we did we could conquer the world.

3) Liberty and lives: Holds true for the situation in Palestine and Iraq. However don't you find it quite odd the Islamic world can gripe about this respective to other issues. In Darfur 2 million have died yet when confronted by the West the claim by the OIC was we were "attacking Islam." Regarding Iraq it is selective outrage(all though it is right because the Iraq war was evil) because when Sadam was butchering hundereds of thousands the Islamic world was silent. Don't you also find it quite odd the Islamic world can draw hundreds of thousands to rallies for the cartoons issue but never once have they protested in mass for any number of terror attacks? I'm sorry but this arguement falls on deaf ears for me because it seems the Islamic world only protests when it is their lives and liberty at stake--especially so when an infidel is thrown into the mix. Have you once heard the Islamic world decry the occupation of Cyprus or the seperatist movements in Kashmire, the Phillipines, or Thailand?

This arguement is also worrying because of the fact human rights reports show year after year Islamic states are the worst abusers. Just read up on the reports concerning religious minorities in any number of Islamic states for some perspective. Unlike the Islamic world the West gurantees equal rights for all regardless of faith. The Islamic world only gurantees rights under Sharia that clearly relegates the unbeliver to secondary status. It is why the Muslims population grows exponentially in the West while non Muslims shrink dramatically in the Islamic world(for perspective look up the Christian population over time in the Middle East.) Clearly says while the West will accept Islam the Islamic world cannot accept the West.

In conclusion, while these issues are note worthy, I often find them continually used as a "skirt" to hide behind. It is easier to blame the other guy for your faults than to look within. In Islam it is especially so when the target is non Mulsim because of the negative predisposition their scirpture places on us. Keep in mind this does not hold true for most Muslims but it does hold true for the ideologues of the Islamic world who largely control it. Those ideologues are the Muslim Brotherhood, Deobandi school, Wahhabi school, the Mullahs in Iran, and a few other groups. Look each up in wiki and pay attention to what they teach. For when you do it becomes quite apparent that their central message espoused by Islam is itself colonial and imperialistic demanding all must submit to Islam. We just don't see it manifest physically today because the Islamic world lacks the power to so. In antiquity they did and the long list of Islamic conquests attests to this. The West needs to stop leaving religion out of the equation if they ever hope to fully understand the conflicts in the Islamic world--and that is why I keep bringing it up. Comprehension through repetition!! :)

Thx
Bill

[Dave]

Catherine,

Here are two books from one of Britain's leading experts on Islam and terrorism. I have not read his books, but I have read a number of his articles. He is an Anglican priest.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978714121?ie=UTF8&tag=robertspencer-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0978714121

A review of the first book -

http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Islam-Church-Its-Mission/dp/0978714156/ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/the-single-best-resource-for-understanding-islamic-teaching-about-jihad.html#comments