Among the many major misconceptions pertaining to Arabs and
Muslims is the common belief that they are a weak willed, irrelevant collective,
easily influenced and effortlessly manipulated. This mistaken assumption
underscores the very ailment that has afflicted United States foreign policy in
the Middle East for generations.
As media pundits and commentators began their drum roll in
anticipation of US President Barack Obama’s speech in Egypt on June 4, very few
paid attention to the fact that Arabs and Muslims are not so naïve as to be
wooed by mere rhetoric but that they are significant players in their own
affairs, capable of resistance and change.
To begin with, it is underhanded and foolish to speak of one
Arab and Muslim polity, as if geography, class, language and politics, among
many other factors, are irrelevant attributes which are easily overlooked. Why
is there an insistence on addressing Arabs and Muslims as one unified body that
behaves according to a specific rationale; predisposed to respond to the same
stimuli? True, various groups within the Arab and Muslim collective share a
common history, language and religion but even the same groups differ in
historic interpretations, dialects and religious sects and frames of reference.
Why the reductionism? Is it true that a struggling North African
immigrant in a French slum carries the same values, expectations and outlook on
life as a wealthy, SUV-driving Arab in the Gulf? Does a poor Egyptian, grappling
for recognition within a political body that has room for only the chosen few,
relate to the world the same way as does a Malaysian Muslim with a wide range of
opportunities, civic, economic and political?
Even within the same country, among the same people, adhering to
the same religion, does the world mean the same and will Obama’s words in Egypt
represent the unifying lexicon that will meet every Arab or Muslim man or
woman’s aspirations? Can one lump together those who collaborated with those who
resisted; those who exploited others and those who were exploited; those who had
plenty and those who had none?
As the countdown to Obama’s visit neared the highly anticipated
day, pundits and polls were pouring in. A recent survey conducted by Shibley
Telhami and Zogby International was carried out in six Arab countries, each
representing unique collective experiences that cannot be compared. The poll
declared that Obama is popular among Arabs yet Arabs are still sceptical about
the US. It was learnt that Iraq matters the most, followed by the Arab-Israeli
conflict.
There is no denying that Arabs in various countries have major
perceptions and expectations in common. But who is to say that there are not
more commonalities between the poor of Egypt and Mexico than the elites of Egypt
and Pakistan? However, such assertion would be irrelevant for one main reason:
Arabs and Muslims have been demonised collectively, targeted collectively and at
times victimised collectively. In other words, it is US foreign policy towards
various Arab and Muslim collectives that largely explains the constant lumping
of all Arabs and all Muslims into one single category.
Arabs and Muslims only seem relevant as a collective whenever
the US is interested in carrying out a rhetorical policy shift, a war, a
self-serving "democracy" campaign and so forth. They are available as a
collective to be duly demonised as "terrorist" or readily shunned for
subscribing to the "wrong" religion.
David Schenker, writing for the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy website, was honest enough in explaining the significance of Obama’s
speech in Cairo. He pointed out that Iran is a major issue that Obama and
moderate Arabs have in common. His explanation is straightforward: "Tehran’s
progress towards a nuclear weapon and its provision of material and ideological
support for moqawama, or resistance, across the region is of grave
concern to Washington and its moderate Arab allies."
According to the poll cited above, only a fraction of Arabs
surveyed seem concerned by the Iranian nuclear programme. This leaves Iran
posing one major "threat", its support of resistance.
It is ironic that resistance, which is a universal right for any
oppressed individual or collective, is being dealt with as a "grave concern".
This explains in part the lingering illusion that continues to mar US foreign
policy and also highlights the common strength that Arab and Muslim masses
continue to wield, their ability to resist. Amid the democracy programmes that
have appeared and disappeared in recent years – George W. Bush’s Middle East
democracy project being one – none was an outcome of genuine and collective
movements in Arab and Muslim nations. Such genuine movements, although in
existence, are unpopular in Washington, for they seem inconsistent with US
interests.
This leaves one last aspect of collective self-expression,
again, resistance, in all its manifestations. It is the root causes of Arab and
Muslim resistance that are most deserving of analysis and understanding as
opposed to mere dismissal on the grounds that it is a "grave concern".
If Obama continues to approach Arabs and Muslims as one single
collective, ready to be manipulated and wooed with bogus promises, fancy
rhetoric and impressive body language then he will surely be disappointed.
Highly politicised, sceptical and, frankly, frustrated societies refuse to be
reduced to a mere percentage in some opinion poll that can be swayed this way or
that whenever the US administration determines the time and place.
It is that incessant lack of depth that has caused the US so
much grief in the Middle East and will cost it even more if such imprudence
persists.