Not all "Nos" are created equal

The vast majority of the western articles documenting the Arab response to Obama's Cairo Speech have trumpeted it's success with Arab moderates, while lumping the majority of Islamist reactions as a rejection of the Presidents remarks. Typical of the responses was Radio Free Europe: "Initial reactions... were generally but not universally positive, ranging from a broad welcome by government officials and moderate clerics to outright rejection by some Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt."

What puzzles me about the about the above reactions is the the assumption that all groups objecting to the speech did so for the same reasons. I think the range of objections raised by Islamist show some pretty powerful distinctions that point to the USA's ability to work with these groups in the future.

First of all, I think its important to note that the most stark denunciation came before Obama had even spoken. Osama bin Ladin's tape has received the most press, but theres also this round up of the comments on some of the prominent jihadi forums. While these opinions represent an important voice, general denouncements of the new president without even listening to the speech also indicate that these groups aren't all that interested in hearing whats being said. This is a pretty good sign (if we needed more of them) that these groups arent going to be particularly open to dialogue and public diplomacy. However, these also werent the people the president was speaking to.

Instead I think the more important groups are the extremist opposition groups that are active int he politics of the countries they are active in, that is groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Sadrist. These are the groups that the US is going to have to negotiate with in the next four years, and they hold a much greater sway in Arab public opinion. These groups were neither as monolithic, or as negative, in their response then articles like the one above would indicate.

Below are statements from party officials that give a sense of the range of early reactions available in translation:

Coverage from Muslim Brotherhood's English Language site quoted a statement released by the party on Saturday:

The general principles of human rights, justice, the necessity of dialogue based on mutual respect and trust, and others which President Obama mentioned in his speech are unarguable,” the statement said affirming that the emotional phrases and eloquent language Obama used in his speech through which he tried to win the hearts of Muslims neither establish any justice nor restore any right to Muslims whether in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other country in the Islamic world where Muslim bloodshed is found day and night under the planning and cunningness of the successive American administrations.

The statement also explained that Obama’s declaration of America’s continuing support for Israel to attain their security and failure to recognize the right of Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation confirms that Obama is following the path of his predecessors in their double standards policy.

The statement also denounced the short and superficial reference to democracy and criticizing of the peoples calling for it in the Arab-Islamic world while ignoring the existing dictatorships and unjust and corrupt regimes which suppress their peoples and marginalize their roles.

The Brotherhood statement makes the unique and interesting move of complaining that the USA isnt doing enough to promote democracy. This makes a lot of sense internally (US backing would be a huge help if they want to be included fully in future Egyptian elections, particularly if Mubarak does step down), but it also has real implications in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.

Hamas seemed to offer a less unified front, with multiple Gaza spokesmen offering contradicting analysis of the speech. Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha stated:

Speaking about a policy of pursuing a war against extremism and working towards two states for peoples on Palestinian lands is no different from the policy of his predecessor, George W Bush.

However, another spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum remarked:

So all we can say is that there is a difference in the statements, and the statements of today did not include a mechanism that can translate his wishes and views into actions

and then went even further, claiming:

We think we can build on this speech... We can take positive things from the speech to open communications with Obama and the U.S. administration.

In the case of Hizbollah, who seems to have lost major ground in today's election, official party statements seem to be far more radical than those of individual politicians. An official statement on Saturday included:

"any change felt by the region's Muslim and Arab people in the speech is not related to a change in U.S, strategy, but rather to repeated [U.S.] failures in conquering Arab and Muslim states as well as the failure of policies."

The party said that this is mainly due to the [continued] "resistance by forces of resistance, liberation and independence. "

Hizbullah described president Obama's speech as a form of "smart talk that aims to polish Washington's deformed image. This does not rise up to the standard of a new strategy, or [political] objective by the new American administration."

AFP quotes Lebanonese MP, Hassan Fadlallah:

We do not sense any real change regardless of the language of the speech because violence in the region is practiced first and foremost by Israel and by the US armies of occupation, and not by the people who resist... The Islamic and Arab world does not need lectures, but real acts starting with a radical change toward the Palestinian cause.

Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of a prominent oppositional Shia faction in Iraq, as well as the now disarmed Jaish al-Mahdi also commented:

The honeyed and flowery speeches express only one thing - that America wants to adopt a different attitude in subduing the world and putting it under its control and globalization.

Sure, its possible that the statements being made available to English speaking audiences are intentionally moderated. Its also possible that in the next week we'll see much more radical language coming out of these groups. However, this small set of statements seems to have some interesting implications if they turn out to be representative.

1. A recognition of the presidents skills as an orator, while attempting to make the case that actions will have to speak louder then words. While this isnt a new strategy, letters like the one from Hamas leaked by CODE PINK show that these groups are also willing to name terms they would see as bridging that gap that are well within Obama's power, rather than insisting on action from Israel.
2. The further out of political and military power the group is, the harsher their reaction to the speech. al-Sadr, who probably had the harshest of the reactions, is not nearly the power in Iraqi politics that he was in 2005, whereas the Brotherhood is looking at a higher level of legitimacy then they have had in quiet some time, and is the author of the most moderate of the statements. Again, Obama may have more to work with in creating alliances here than it first appears.

The NYTimes does have an interesting piece the weekend on why the the speech was so powerful in undermining jihadist claims. Also, if you only read Obama's speech, I think you missed some of the impact. Luckily the new White House likes the intertubes, so the whole speech is up on youtube.