Obama's Speech to the Muslim World: Does it Mark the End of the 9/11 Era?

In his much anticipated speech to the Muslim world delivered at Cairo University on the 4th of June 2009 Obama sought to break with the discourse and the policies of his predecessor and to usher in a new relationship between the United States and the Muslim world based on mutual interests and mutual respect. The speech was widely perceived as marking the end of the post 9/11 era which was characterized by high levels of tension and mistrust in Muslim-US relations and as ushering in a new phase based on dialog and cooperation in tackling some of the divisive issues that the speech addressed.

In his Cairo speech Obama made important departures from the discourse of the Bush administration which tended to view the Muslim world from the narrow lens of terrorism and the war on terror and to portray conflicts between the US and the Muslim world as civilizational conflicts between the values of the freedom and democracy on the one hand and violence, extremism and authoritarianism on the other. The Cairo speech was especially successful on three different fronts:

1. In his speech Obama gave due recognition to the role of Islam and Islamic civilization. Obama devoted the first part of his speech to asserting the historical role of the Islamic civilization and to giving due recognition to the contributions of the Muslim world to the arts and sciences. He also quoted a number of verses of the Quran which emphasize religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence between different peoples. On another note, Obama referred to the contributions of American Muslims to American society and emphasized the freedoms that Muslims enjoy in the US and asserted the need to respect such freedoms in other western societies where Muslims constitute important minorities. Obama also emphasized the need to combat negative stereotypes on both sides and to distinguish between Islam - a religion that advocates respect for life and human dignity and peaceful coexistence between peoples - and the practices of a small minority of violent extremists. The language used by Obama and the various references he made to holy scriptures helped set apart this speech from those of his predecessor which tended to make frequent reference to terrorism and to use provocative words such as "crusades" and the "axis of evil."

2. In his speech, Obama also articulated a more even handed approach regarding the Palestinian-Israeli and the Arab-Israeli conflicts. And though he reaffirmed that the bond between the US and Israel was unbreakable and asserted the need to recognize the suffering that Jewish people have been subjected to; in his speech Obama also recognized the suffering of the Palestinians and affirmed their legitimate right to dignity, opportunity and statehood. In terms of practical steps, Obama called on Israel to put an end to settlement activities and to end the daily suffering and humiliation of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. He called on Palestinians to renounce violence, to recognize Israel's right to exist, and to focus on rebuilding their institutions. He also called on Arab states to operationalize the Arab Peace Initiative and to help Palestinians rebuild their institutions. Finally, Obama asserted his personal commitment to pursuing a two state solution.

3. On the questions of democracy, religious freedoms, and women's rights, Obama adopted a more sober approach than his predecessor. While affirming that democracy, religious freedoms and women's rights are universal values, he maintained that they cannot be imposed by one nation on any other. He did however maintain that the US welcomes cooperation with countries that pursue these values and stated that the American government intends to work with governments in the Muslim world through a series of programs and projects that aim to advance these goals. Moreover, in what seemed to be a veiled reference to Islamist groups, Obama pointed out that elections on their own do not make a true democracy and that groups that come to power through the electoral process must maintain their power through consent and respect for the rights of minorities.

In spite of its many positive components, Obama's speech was lacking in some areas. Situating the war on Iraq in the context of confronting violent extremism helps feed the distortions propagated by the Bush administration about linkages between the war on terror and the occupation of Iraq. Similarly, reducing the war of Afghanistan to the question of confronting violent extremism discounts the relevance of other variables such as the weakness and corruption of the political elite. Obama also dealt with the question of Iran very superficially by affirming his concerns about a nuclear arms race in the region and asserting his commitment to a nuclear free world without noting the equally negative impact of Israel's nuclear arsenal on stability in the region. Finally, Obama did not broach the subject of failed states in the region in places such as Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine and the threat they constitute to regional stability.


Egyptian reactions to Obama's speech were varied. Some welcomed the speech and the invitation to turn a new page in US-Muslim relations based on mutual respect and mutual interests. They also welcomed Obama's recognition of the rights of the Palestinians and his commitment to a two-state solution and they regarded the speech as the beginning of a new era in US-Muslim relations. They also called on Arab countries to take positive steps and to work closely with the Obama administration to resolve regional issues.

Others expressed their disappointment with the speech and with the positions Obama adopted vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. They considered Obama's speech a marketing or public relations campaign to make more palatable some of the same policies adopted during the Bush era. Last but not least, a third group welcomed the speech but maintained that actions matter more than words and that Obama must translate the good intentions articulates in the speech into concrete actions on the ground.

In spite of these and other reservations, the speech seems to have succeeded in stirring something different in the region. In the days and weeks that followed the speech, pro-Western parties won a majority of the vote in the Lebanese elections. Similarly, support for the reformist candidate in the Iranian elections gained further momentum. Israel and Hamas both took positive steps - albeit with a lot of reservations - towards recognizing the two state solution. And even though the road ahead is still full of difficulties, it has now become possible - for the first time in eight years- for the US and the Arab world to work together through towards realizing greater regional stability.