Welcome to Layalina Productions

The Layalina Review

VOL. V NO. 10, April 24-May 7, 2009

The First 100 Days of Obama through the Arab Lens

100 days into President Obama’s administration, analyses of his foreign policy impact featured prominently in the media. Al-Ahram Weekly’s Gihan Shahine notes that while definitive answers are lacking, there is “an eclectic mix of reactions to the new US president, ranging from public enthusiasm and admiration to frustration and despair.”

According to Morris Reid, a commentator for CNBC interviewed by ArabianBusiness.com, “the Obama effect” will continue to spread abroad.

“People don't realize how important a president is in setting the tone for a nation, particularly in America,” he adds. Regarding the Bush administration, Reid suggests, “We didn't respect different opinions, and we frankly didn't respect and engage with people who may have had a different opinion.

Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, writes on his blog Informed Comment that assessments of President Obama’s foreign policy during his first 100 days in office should be based on a comparison to the previous administration’s policies. “Obama has engaged in a number of acts of public diplomacy toward the Muslim world that were intended to change the image of the United States in the region and to marshal for his purposes American soft power.”

Shahine highlights that many Egyptian (85%) and Turkish people (76 %) people told a 2007 BBC poll that the US “provoked more conflict than it prevents” in the Middle East, fearing that the US sought to “maintain control over the oil resources” of the region and did not favor democracy.

“Radicalism in the Muslim world is very much wrought up with anti-imperialism… Bush was a poster boy for that arrogance,” adds Cole, who significantly admires Obama’s diplomatic overtures to the Iranian government and his ability to garner the support of 40% percent of Turkey.

Bulent Aras for Media Monitors said that Obama’s support for Turkey’s inclusion in the European Union to “help to bridge the gap between Islam and West,” as well as his balanced approach to the Armenian genocide issue and promotion of democracy “will soon overturn the biter legacy of the Bush era.”

In turning attention to Syria, Reid suggests that Obama’s overtures mean “that we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable…There are fundamental things we won’t agree with certain countries on, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t play a helpful and constructive role in the stabilization of this region.”

Cole promotes caution in the evaluation of the policies.

“Tone is easy, where there is a will. Substance is hard. Obama, to remain credible, will have to stick to the Iraq withdrawal timetable” and “make breakthroughs” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in Afghanistan and against terrorism. “So, an ‘A’ on style, which is all that could probably be accomplished in 100 days. We need to come back and judge substance a year from now,” concludes Cole.

Shahine spoke with Mahmoud Khalil, a professor at Cairo University, who noted that many Middle Eastern citizens do not understand that national policy “does not necessarily change with just the change of one person, [though] Obama’s messages of reconciliation should not be taken lightly” because they indicate that Obama “is getting the world ready for a new policy.”

Ultimately, writes Shahine, the US may have difficulty “changing Arab hearts and minds,” particularly if the “public is dissatisfied with US policies on the ground.”

Reid finally adds that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “hands on approach” is crucial for the success of Obama’s policies. I happen to be one of those people who believes that the women of the GCC will have a lot to do with transforming the image of these nations, and a person like Hillary Clinton can go a long way in participating in those empowerment initiatives.

Back to articles