President Obama gives an interview to Arabic station Al-Arabiya. Frankly based on what I’ve read about what actually gets watched in the middle east, he should have gone on Al Jazeera. But any step is a good one here.
In his first formal interview since taking office, the president spoke with the Dubai-based station Al Arabiya on topics pertinent to the Arab and Muslim worlds. Much of the interview was spent defining the new approach that the United States would implement in that region: respectfulness over divisiveness, listening over dictating, engagement over militarism. But the president drew the line when it came to terrorist organizations.
“Their ideas are bankrupt,” he told host Hisham Melhem, when asked to respond to recent audio clips from al Qaeda leadership calling him various epithets. “There’s no actions that they’ve taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.”
Pressed later in the interview to comment on Bush’s use of the term ‘War On Terror,’ and the implications that the phrase held, Obama once again distanced himself from his White House predecessor.
“I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters,” he said, according to a transcript provided by the White House. “We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.”
Woot.
It is clear that Obama knows that this is a nuanced world and – wonder of wonders – he understands it.
Nothing may come of this Administration’s outreach – BUT – I strongly suspect that Barack Hussein Obama is a breath of fresh air – a breath that the world had come to fear would never come. He is the man for the time. Let all of us; Christian, Jew, Muslin, Atheist and all others that wish our children better educated, safer and healthier to rally to this call for reason. Lets isolate the harbingers of hate on all sides and give peace a chance – we have nothing to lose – much to gain.
I believe Iran has its next election in June 2009. If that’s right, now is the time for ordinary Iranians to send a message of hope to the Mullahs – a message of peace, a message that say’s “Yes we can.”
A message they dare not ignore.
Nothing may come of this Administration’s outreach
Oh, I don’t know about that. Glen Beck may just have an anuerism.
Wow, nothing from the Lollipop Guild yet? I’m surprised.
I hope you paid close attention to his statements when the subject of Iranian nukes came up (you have to look at the full text transcript):
Notice that his somewhat rambling response in no way said anything resembling or even close to “No” to the question of Iran possessing nukes. At best, he waggled his finger reproachfully at Iran and accused them of being “not helpful”.
President Obama votes “Present” on the issue.
Dave in SoCal…
Obama’s answer FAR from being “Present” on the issue is a brilliant response. When you are going into negotiations with people that don’t trust you an important first step is to establish common ground and show respect. As Obama has said, “Words matter.”
As an experienced negotiator with over 25 years experience I thought his comments were an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT opening statement.
Bravo Obama!
Re: Dave in Socal. Sigh. I hope Obama understands that nothing he does will ever please tunnel visions Repubs so he should just ignore you all and go with his instincts. The interview was pretty much brilliant from top to bottom. He said something which most Repubs will never understand, “words matter”. You would think after all the stupid bluster of the past eight years and the election people would get a hint. You catch more flies with honey than with neocon bravado. If you tell Iran publicly that they absolutely cannot build a nuke, then short of bombing them every six months nothing you can do will stop them. You have to make it look in public that they came to the decision themselves, you know, like a sovereign country and all.
BTW, as I understand it, he chose Al Arabiya as opposed to Al Jazeera because it is viewed as a more moderate network, even though Al Jazeera has a much bigger audience. Kinda like going to CNN instead of the kooks at Fox even though Fox supposedly has bigger audience.
Mylegacy:
“Words matter”. Lack of words matter as well. Sometimes what you don’t say is just as important as wht you say. Obama’s failure to answer a direct and straightforward question like this says a lot to the people involved.
As noted here, our host seems to think that Bush’s supposed silence (ignoring for a moment the UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions that he, in reality, pushed for) only encouraged Iran to continue their nuclear program. Won’t Obama’s non-response to that question do the same?
I hope Obama understands that nothing he does will ever please tunnel visions Repubs so he should just ignore you all and go with his instincts.
I think that President “I Won” Obama has clearly demonstrated that he cares little about pleasing Republicans, so I fully expect him to continue ignoring them.
And he did go with his instinct: On a tough question, he declined to answer.
If you tell Iran publicly that they absolutely cannot build a nuke, then short of bombing them every six months nothing you can do will stop them.
I doubt that your “can’t win, don’t try” approach is a winning one. At least not by an administration that wants to go beyond one term.
As an experienced negotiator with over 25 years experience I thought his comments were an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT opening statement.
Looks like the other side in this particular negotiation isn’t using the same negotiator handbook:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Barack Obama should apologise for 60 years of ‘crimes’
I’m sure those 60 years of ‘crimes’ can all be attributed to Bush in some way.
I’m sure those 60 years of ‘crimes’ can all be attributed to Bush in some way.
No, they start with Eisenhower and go from there.
Notice that his somewhat rambling response in no way said anything resembling or even close to “No” to the question of Iran possessing nukes.
If he had simply said “No,” it would be a pretty shitty interview now, wouldn’t it?
If he had simply said “No,” it would be a pretty shitty interview now, wouldn’t it?.
You would think that the most eloquent President in the history of the world could have crafted a reply that essentially boiled down to an artful and diplomatic “No”.
Dave, all of the arabs I have ever negotiated with (amongst others), love to haggle and talk around the matter at hand. You won’t get the good carpets, for example, if you try to be in and out of the shop. You sit down, have coffee, find common ground (a fair knowledge of what you call ’soccer’ is scarily useful in most places!), and then you come around to business.
bryan,
I am very familiar with the Arab approach to negotiations, having visited Saudi Arabia at least a dozen times over the past 8 years for sales campaigns and meetings to resolve customer concerns. You are 100% correct, they will circle around an issue for quite a while before finally addressing it. They are extremely hospitable and will go out of their way to make you comfortable. When negotiating, they often make outrageous demands or threaten drastic action up front, but after going back and forth for a while and circling around they come back to a more reasonable position and then you can start the real discussions. That’s what I was talking about with my comment to mylegacy above where I mentioned that the other side isn’t using the same negotiator handbook as he is.
The negotiating approach used in the West does not necessarily work in the Arab (or Persian) world, and expecting the other side to follow the same rulebook you’re using is a mistake.
So mylegacy’s comment above about his 25 years experience negotiating (within the West, I assume) and thinking Obama’s statements were perfect doesn’t mean that in this particular negotiation, with this particular country, they were.
You would think that the most eloquent President in the history of the world could have crafted a reply that essentially boiled down to an artful and diplomatic “No”.
Yeah, I think he did that. It’s called nuance. The last guy who had his job didn’t do that particularly well.