Response to Obama’s Speech

Sahar

So Obama made his much anticipated speech in Cairo. Let’s ignore the bad choice of location and focus on the content of the speech. I don’t know what the big fuss is all about. He quotes the Qur’an and everyone is woozy in admiration. He makes a few obvious factual points about Islam’s contribution to the world and again everyone is in awe. But of course he should, I thought, he’s addressing the Muslim world.

In stark contrast to his predecessor, Bush, Obama’s political overtures sounded almost pleasant at times. There was no mention of the misnomer that had dominated the discourse of post-911: terrorism.

But anyone sounds better than Bush; it’s like comparing Obama to Satan. Amid the language of tolerance and universalism, he talked with Bush-like triumph about 911 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—only to remind us that America has no intention to remain there.  However, he leveled this assurance with the reminder that extremism must be confronted in all its forms.

He discussed the issue of Palestine-Israel, condemning Palestinian violence but not the systematic violence Israel has wrought in Gaza 2009, Lebanon 1978, 1982 and 2006 which culminated in the deaths of thousands of civilians.  He talked about the nuclear issue and made digs at Iran, but no mention of Israel’s warheads which sources say number up to 200.  But it’s not these insidious moments in Obama’s over-glorified speech that are my focus, but the reference to women’s rights.

There’s been a bit of an uproar by women’s groups and feminists who claim Obama either did not go far enough in defending women’s rights or disagreed with his defense of the hijab.  To my amusement, Annie Sugier, President of The League of Women’s International Law was seemingly appalled by Obama’s defense of the hijab. Sugier described it as “an immense slap in the face for the women in Algeria, Iran or Afghanistan who have died in atrocious conditions as a consequence of their refusal to wear what they considered to be the most radical sign of women’s oppression and of segregation between men and women”.

The violence that is meted out against women could not possibly have anything to do with the historical political instability of each country brought on from imperialism?  No? Perhaps Sugier is not aware of (or conveniently ignoring) the revivalism of the hijab throughout the region as a reassertion of national pride in Islam and its rich culture.

Relying on a Eurocentric hermetic discourse, she reduces the meaning of the hijab as symbolic of women’s oppression and continues, “To say that one wears the veil voluntarily does not efface the humiliation that it signifies for all women”.  What women is she talking about? Certainly not the women who are fighting for their right to wear it in France and the broader West? Or the women who choose to wear it for religious, nationalist/political, cultural purposes.  It is these women she arrogantly is deciding to speak for.

Fatemeh Fakhraie of MMW, who wrote at DoubleX had a different response.   Though I agree with Fakhraie’s overall response, her interpretation of Obama’s speech in reference to the hijab differed from my own. She states, “The bit about hijab was especially disappointing. In a region with unequal family laws, socially acceptable sexual harassment, and discriminatory legal codes, the hijab is hardly the main point of debate”.

Indeed, the hijab isn’t the main issue for Muslim women in Muslim countries; however, I think Obama’s point here wasn’t really in regards to Muslims in Muslim countries, but Muslims living in the West.  The issue of hijab has a profoundly symbolic meaning in the West. It touches on issues of racism, tolerance, national identity, multiculturalism, interfaith cross-cultural dialogue and human rights. These issues are deeply affecting Muslims as a whole, and the debates on the hijab throughout the West are indications of such points of contention. After all, Western attitudes toward the hijab play a crucial role in how the Western audience views what goes on in Muslim countries and even legitimises conflicts and invasions, as we saw in Afghanistan in 2001.  Such issues have furthered the tension between Muslims and Western countries, which Obama was attempting to address.

Fakhraie is right in observing the importance of Obama highlighting the gender inequality existing in Western countries, “We often forget that when we point our fingers at other countries and find things about their gender systems objectionable, we’re living in a glass house built upon obscene rates of discrimination, rape, and violence against women. That doesn’t absolve anyone, but Obama carefully reminded us that we are all moving forward together in improving things for women”.

Muslims often react to Western critics like Sugier by reminding them they have their own backyard to clean up.  Such responses have almost stifled the debate on women’s rights in a cross-cultural setting.  Perhaps Obama was aware of this when he says “issues of women’s equality are by no means an issue simply for Islam”.

So although I’m not intoxicated by Obama mania and had serious issues with aspects of his speech, his references to women’s rights were satisfactory.  Women’s rights groups critical of him  have just overreacted.  Obama was aware of the political landmine he was on and treaded lightly. He talked about rights for women in a holistic sense and did not patronisingly lecture the Muslim world. His comments did not smack of American arrogance, which is what we’ve grown accustomed to over the  past few years–to do so would have been politically disastrous.