May 19, 2011
Reaction in Arab Capitals Is Muted and Mixed
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
CAIRO -- President Obama may have hoped that his embrace of the democracy movement sweeping the Arab world might revive the warmth his name evoked after his speech to the Muslim world two years ago. [1] But across the region, many said his soaring words and financial pledges did little to undo their disappointment at his apparent equivocation during the early days of the Arab revolt.
"Everybody still has it in the back of their minds how America flip-flopped in their position toward these Arab revolutions," said Amr Jarrad, 28, a banker in Amman, Jordan, recalling when the White House at first appeared to stand by its ally, Hosni Mubarak, during the Egyptian uprising. "If you were so good in supporting autocratic regime, why can't you be so good in telling them to leave?"
From here at the heart of the Arab Spring to its current battlefronts in Damascus; Syria; and Benghazi, Libya, many said the speech had failed to dispel the legacy of resentment from America's support for Arab autocrats, its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its alliance with Israel. Many said Mr. Obama seemed most willing to support democratic revolts after the fact.
"They wait to see who wins and then support them," said Ahmed Maher, 30, a civil engineer and an architect of the Egyptian uprising as coordinator of the liberal April 6 Youth Movement.
Though some applauded Mr. Obama's criticism of America's allies in Yemen and Bahrain for their crackdowns on peaceful protesters, many noted the conspicuous omission of Saudi Arabia, another ally of the United States that is a conservative force throughout the region.
Mr. Obama acknowledged what he saw as a credible Bahraini fear that Iran might have worked from abroad to stir up the unrest, but he failed to mention that Saudi Arabia had intervened by sending troops to help crush the revolt.
"His message is clear," said Muhsen Awajy, a dissident Islamist lawyer in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. "Do the job, and when you finish -- when you have paid the price -- we as Americans are ready to support our interests in a new phase." He added, "It is a great country with great values, and he should translate that into timely intervention."
Even in Syria, where Mr. Obama has imposed new sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad and urged him to accept reform or "get out of the way," some activists were not ready to trust an American president. "We've had long experience with American policy in the region, and we don't trust Obama's call for change in Syria," said Abdel Majid Manjouni, leader of the opposition Socialist Democratic Arab Union Party in Aleppo, Syria's second-largest city.
Some close observers approved Mr. Obama's explicit invocation, for the first time, of Israel's 1967 borders as the starting place for talks with the Palestinians. But since those boundaries have long been the presumed baseline for negotiations, many in the Arab world were unimpressed. Instead, they noted that he did not call for Israel to stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory.
Egyptians thanked Mr. Obama for his pledge of $1 billion in debt forgiveness. But many saw it as an act of atonement for past support of Arab dictators, and they called it paltry in comparison to the many billions given as military aid to the Mr. Mubarak's government or spent on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Others said Mr. Obama's talk of support from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund was likely to remind Egyptians of the economic liberalization under Mr. Mubarak's government -- led by his reviled son Gamal, a banker -- that enriched only an elite.
"The Egyptian experience with both these institutions is totally negative because the so-called structural economic adjustment that had been done only made the rich richer and the poor poorer," said Hassan Nafaa, a political scientist at Cairo University who attended the address two years ago.
Still, at least a few said they discerned a "new strategy" from Washington. "We felt that for the first time that he was talking to us and not to the leaders as he did before," said Mona Makram-Ebeid, a professor at American University in Cairo. "This time he put his hands on the real problems that are affecting the different countries," she said, applauding his talk of tracking down the money stolen by ousted dictators and combating corruption.
Salem Sharaa, sitting with his 4-year-old son at a cafe in Benghazi, said he was pleased that Mr. Obama had discussed the violent Libyan conflict as part of the broader Arab uprising along with the peaceful movements in Tunisia and Egypt. "He said the Libyan people would be free," said Mr. Sharaa, a former city official. "The Americans have interfered in other countries. We wish they would do it here."
Still, many in the region said they were too preoccupied with their own uprisings to pay much attention to words from Washington. It was a sharp contrast to the fascination with President Obama's speech in Cairo two years ago, or the rapt suspense that awaited his every word during the Egyptian revolution.
Even in Libya, where a United States-backed air campaign is raining bombs on the forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, residents of Benghazi, a rebel stronghold, lowered the volume on the wall-to-wall coverage on Al Jazeera so they could get on with their haircuts or conversations. One activist in Damascus refused to watch.
"The speech he gave in Cairo evaporated after two weeks; this speech will evaporate in a few minutes," said Essam el-Erian, a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. "And the message it carries to the nations of this region is basically this: Do not wait to get any support from the White House; maintain your efforts and achieve your freedom."
Reporting was contributed by Mona El-Naggar from Cairo; Neil MacFarquhar from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Anthony Shadid from Beirut, Lebanon; and Kareem Fahim from Benghazi, Libya.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/02/us/politics/200900604_OBAMA_CAIRO.html