Obama’s Cairo Speech as a Guide to a Mediator’s Opening Statement

Copyright R. Olivia Samad. All Rights Reserved.

R. Olivia Samad is the Chair of the Board of the Asian Pacific American Dispute Resolution Center. She is an attorney for Southern California Edison where she works on energy related matters before the Public Utilities Commission. Prior to joining SCE, she  was a litigator at Kirkland & Ellis LLP where she worked on intellectual property and commercial cases. She also negotiated or mediated settlements in over 200 preference and reclamation actions as debtor’s counsel. Her interests include mediation and diplomacy.

On the 4th of June, President Obama made good on his August 2007 campaign promise to “travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle.”  He chose to speak from Cairo, a former capital of the Muslim world and a bridge between the U.S. and Muslim countries, and between Asia and Africa. He spoke from a university, not a government building and welcomed the co-sponsorship of Al-Azhar, where reformer Sheikh Muhammad Abdu preached a century ago. He acknowledged civilization’s debt to Islam:  “It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” He began his speech saying, “For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement.”  The care he chose in selecting a place to honor the past and encourage progress is shown throughout his speech.

You’ve probably seen the video or read the text, and heard numerous pundits analyze it. From the substance and structure of the speech itself and choice of location to the format of distribution and its effect on wide audiences, it was thoughtful and deliberate. On a world stage, Obama adopted methods used by mediators to establish a tone of respect and understanding, focus on solutions and a higher purpose, establish credibility and show cultural fluency. The Cairo speech is an example of what is possible in mediation, and specifically, in a mediator’s opening statement to parties.

I. Dialogue Between and Through Mediation and Diplomacy

The world, our communities and our schools are full of conflict. Despite their different contexts, conflicts have a similar shape. For international disputes, mediation is the most common diplomatic response to conflict between parties, more likely than negotiation, and most often employed where there are hostilities. The APADRC focuses on community- and school-based mediation just as state actors focus on international disputes. Whatever the context, mediation can make a huge impact. Mediation is a process that empowers people and provides an alternative to avoidance, destructive confrontation, prolonged litigation or violence. The parties themselves control the outcome and they are responsible for it.

The Cairo speech is like traditional diplomacy in that it is an address given by a head of state directed to other leaders of nations, but it is also directed to the people of other nations. Thus it is a form of diplomacy that envisions dialogue between non-state actors and has many names – multitrack, citizen-sector, track two, or new diplomacy. It is not as hierarchical as traditional diplomacy and rests its faith in the civilian sector and people, not just state actors.

When the animating assumptions of diplomacy mirror the collaboration and interdependence expected in mediation, the skills and lessons from mediation are easily transferred to enhance a diplomat’s tool kit. And similarly, a thoughtful and deliberate diplomatic speech like Obama’s Cairo speech can teach mediators a great deal as well.

II. What Can We Do with Opening Statements?

Mediators use opening statements to establish the rules and explain the process. But a mediator can also use an opening statement to do much more. Obama’s Cairo speech did not of course address confidentiality or caucus procedures like a mediator’s opening statement would, but it illustrates some of the subtler things that can be achieved in an opening statement.

A. Set the Tone of Respect and Understanding

A good mediator carefully chooses words to set the tone. The choices demonstrate how the parties should speak about difficult issues. It may be a new experience for disputants to speak in a manner that shows respect and allows for understanding. Through tone, the mediator establishes control of the process and builds the participants’ trust by showing them how to become part of a constructive dialogue.

For example in the Cairo speech, Obama  said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”  He took the first step and asked for the same respect in return.

B. Focus on the Future and Problem Solving

A mediator also sets the tone by creating expectations and bringing attention to where things stand. By focusing on interests and solutions, acknowledging the past, but focusing on the future, the parties understand that it is their task to do the same.

Obama said, “So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.” He said, “The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.” He also said “this cycle of suspicion and discord must end." And then he proceeded to take the first step by telling the truth: “I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors.” Later he added, "America…will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true."

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been used as grist by extremists against the United States. Although this was not stated directly in his speech, that awareness may have informed the tone of his statement regarding Israel and Palestine. Cultural fluency and an awareness of rhetoric inform a skillful mediator’s use of tone.

A good mediator creates a space where the parties can state unflinching truth(s). This means there can be no shying away from conflict or confrontation. Radical truth-telling (and listening) is what is required for true resolution. Only by confronting the often difficult truths about politics or disputes can a mediator demonstrate what true respect is. Obama said, “We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.” Many have noted that most of Obama’s speech was polite and non-confrontational, but he did take a strong stance on Israel for a U.S. President. There was anxiety in Israel because they uncharacteristically did not receive an advance copy of the Cairo Speech, and yet, according to Hady Amr, the Director of Brookings Doha Center, “afterwards, both Israeli advisors (albeit with Labor Party leanings) and Hamas leaders said the speech was a heartwarming and landmark speech.” Amr said that the power of this speech is that it could get ordinary Israelis, Arabs and Muslims, together with their leaders, to look in the mirror and address their problems.

C. Unify the Disputants with a Higher Purpose

Conflict makes some mediators and most disputants very uncomfortable. It is often the reason that conflicts are avoided instead of aired and resolved. Making sure that the discourse is respectful and aimed at understanding is of course one way to prevent destructive confrontation. Another way through the discord is for the mediator to help the parties see a unifying purpose to their struggle to resolve their dispute.

Obama appeals to common aspirational goals throughout his speech. He used "should" and "must" a total of 43 times in making a moral appeal to his audience to argue for freedom to speak, to believe or to dress. He didn’t just argue for Muslims to accept the reality of the Holocaust, or for non-Muslims to allow women to wear the Hijab; he argued for universal values that are part of a human tradition. He said, “So let there be no doubt:  Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.” In his conclusion, Obama quoted passages promoting nonviolence from the Quran, the Talmud and the Bible.   

D. Establish Credibility as the Mediator

Setting the tone and creating a fair process enhances the mediator’s status and the parties’ trust in the process. But a mediator can do other things to enhance his or her credibility. In most mediations, fairness is equated with neutrality or a lack of affiliation with either party. But in an international context, the mediator’s standing and leverage may be more important than his/her neutrality. Standing means that their affiliation or knowledge may confer moral integrity or authority to their role. Leverage means that the mediator may be able to raise the stakes for not settling or create high visibility or access to resources to facilitate an agreement. Examples of this type of mediation are the Quakers in Nigeria, the Catholic church in Nicaragua and the Philippines, Jimmy Carter negotiating as a former president, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies Preventative Diplomacy’s training representatives of the former Yugoslavia. Obama in Cairo did something similar through this speech.

Obama relied on his personal biography to increase his standing. He emphasized his affiliation with Muslims by saying “[M]y father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.” 

Obama’s position as the current president of the United States gives him incredible leverage. It added weight and power to his statement that “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”  This leverage is why Israel is worried about Obama’s statement. It is also why some feel hopeful that with Obama’s engagement, there may actually be progress.

E. Have Cultural Fluency

In a multi-ethnic society, or in a cross-cultural dispute, it is critical that the mediators be conscious of how culture can influence the conflict. Cultural fluency means both being aware of one’s own cultural preferences and those of others.

For example, secularism and separation of “church” and state is a Western cultural bias. The bias against religion in the West often prevents mediators from utilizing available resources or engaging allies in peace. Thus, a secular approach can atrophy or fail to utilize the meaningful peace structures present in disputes. This is especially a problem in states with weak or illegitimate judicial systems, where older traditions emphasizing reconciliation or religious institutions may still be strong. Obama avoids this trap that less self-aware leaders fall into. He is able to show his understanding of religious issues and call for allies who share his point of view.

Obama demonstrated his cultural fluency not just by being aware of Western cultural biases but also by being sensitive to the language, history and culture of his Muslim listeners. He greeted his listeners with “assalaamu alaykum” and spoke easily about zakat, Muslim charity. He quoted the Quran repeatedly, and began with: “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” He used this to set the tone, saying “That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can….”  When he mentioned Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed joining in prayer, he followed his statement with “peace be upon them,” something Muslims say to respect the prophets.

By doing the necessary homework, mediators can gain cultural fluency and can learn to anticipate and reframe issues to help the parties have a more constructive dialogue.

F. Reframe Issues

A mediator reframes issues for the parties to enhance dialogue and make resolution possible. To do this effectively, mediators must understand the usual rhetoric and its limitations, and prepare ways around obstacles to dialogue.

A common obstacle to dialogue is use of the language of war, employed both by the Bush administration and Islamic extremists. The symmetry confirmed each side’s idea that their framework was correct. As a result, there are many in the religious right in the U.S. for example, who believe that Islam is the problem.

One of Obama’s tasks was to change the rhetoric to communicate that we are all on the side of peace. Obama had to compete with the narrative of radical Islam in the marketplace of ideas. The attempted pre-emptive rebuttal by Al-Qaeda and anger from Tehran and Hezbollah are indications of the power of the Cairo speech. Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri issued statements just before Obama spoke. They understood that Obama would take on their narrative of violence, defiance of the international community, and destruction of Israel as the way to achieve justice and dignity.

Obama showed the Muslim and Arab nations that we are on the same side in dealing with extremist and militants: “Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims.” In addition, he speaks to non-Muslims who may not understand this, and Muslims who have not had a platform to say it -- that those extremist groups do not represent Islam:  “Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few.” 

Another task was to refute the idea that Islam is the problem. At the same time, he could also show the Arab/Muslim foreign audience that he, as the President of the United States, did not think that Islam was the problem. By showing this long tradition of Islam in the U.S., he makes what may have once been unfamiliar to (some) Americans a part of a larger American tradition:  “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, ‘The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.’ And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library.”

His audience was both domestic and foreign. He said that there are “nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.”  He adds, “We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept:  E pluribus unum – ‘Out of many, one’” (sic). By including Muslims in his vision of America. he communicated to his Arab/Muslim audience abroad that they are like many Americans. Obama, by recognizing the problem of past rhetoric, was able to show that the U.S. cannot fight a war with Islam and that it does not intend to.

He skillfully reframed issues throughout his speech, but nowhere better than when he explained that the “West” is not the enemy of the traditions of Islam. Because he understands that extremists fault America and the West, Obama reframed this issue in two steps.

First, he took away the idea that this is recent or that there is a monolithic “West.” He was able to acknowledge the current context and tension, but said that the “relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.”  “More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”  Thus, he takes a very long view of the conflict that includes colonialism and the Cold War, and, later in his speech, the role of past U.S. policies such as “promotion of democracy” as an excuse for the war in Iraq. He also added, “Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course.”

Second, after establishing the long view, Obama shifted the focus to a shared problem. He said, “Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam” (emphasis added). He emphasizes modernity and globalization again when he discusses economic development and opportunity. This time, he not only displaces the “West” as the source of the change, but also states that many in the West feel similarly toward the changes brought on by globalization: “In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.”

Mediators can use Obama’s Cairo speech for inspiration in examining how to reframe the conflicts they are trying to help parties to resolve.

III. The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good.

There is of course much for a mediator to do and not that much time to do it. A mediator should carefully plan how to set tone, create a place where truth can emerge and conflict can be transformed into resolution, uncover unifying goals shared by the disputants, establish credibility, discover cultural biases, demonstrate cultural fluency and finally reframe issues to help make the parties more amenable to resolving them.

However, mediators need not be perfect. Obama’s Cairo speech wasn’t. Reactions to Obama’s speech were not all positive. Although he moved away from the “war” language, he still referred to an idea of the “Muslim world” as monolithic, an idea that harkens back to the unconstructive idea of the clash of civilizations. One definition of the Muslim world – the member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) – gives a sense of the diversity. The OIC includes 56 countries on four continents. Obama was also criticized by many for creating a false equivalence between the colonized and the colonizer when discussing Israel/Palestine. Despite the valid criticisms leveled against the Cairo speech, I share the view of one Egyptian scholar and journalist, Khalil al-Anani. He commented after the Cairo speech that “Today might be the 12th of September 2001, because I think he [Obama] closed that chapter of 9/11 and called for a new chapter in U.S. relations with the Muslim world.”  

Obama’s speech, though imperfect, was a thoughtful and well-intended first step. If the U.S. continues to engage in the same spirit and back it up with action, mediation and diplomacy both encourage dialogue and dialogue provides a self-correcting process.

IV. Yes We Can!  – For Mediators and Peacemakers

Mediation and diplomacy work best when there are also institutions and cultural expectations to support peace work. Education, youth and international exchanges are ways to create ties that bind us and increase understanding.

The Cairo speech focused on the Muslim world’s youth. Obama said: “And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.” With more than 50% of the region’s population under the age of 25 and increasingly diminishing prospects for education and employment, Obama’s promise of shared progress and focus on education is wise. His focus on supporting “any Muslim-majority country,” not just those of particular geo-political interest to the U.S., to improve the chronically underfunded area of education is an important step toward improving U.S.-Muslim relations in the long run. Investing in education, particularly for women and girls, is one of the smartest investments. Educating women and girls has one of the highest rates of returns in terms of development outcomes and has been proven to improve economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, and prevent HIV/AIDS. Even in the form of dissemination, the speech was egalitarian and democratic and youth-focused. Translations and transcriptions of all kinds were on Facebook and Twitter. The Whitehouse posted the official Cairo speech video to YouTube. Like his campaign for President, Obama’s campaign for peace in the Muslim world is already grassroots.

Obama refers to education and innovation as the currency of the 21st century. The language of the 21st century, in an increasingly smaller world, will be that of the culturally fluent mediator. These are the skills the APADRC is teaching and spreading here in Southern California. We are creating a larger community of individuals who expect better, more creative forms of conflict resolution than we have seen. Nearly 1400 mediators have said they yearned to see this in diplomacy. The Cairo speech models this ethos to the world by seeking dialogue and understanding.

The norms we establish for peace and our ideas about how to resolve disputes create what we think of as possible. A good mediator expands the horizons; Obama’s speech is an example of what is possible.

V. Sources

Brookings Institution, Change We Can Believe In? The Muslim World, America, and Obama’s Promise, 2009.
Brookings Institution Ending Poverty, Promoting Peace: The Quest for Global Security, 2006.
Darby, John and Roger Mac Ginty, Eds. Contemporary Peacemaking: Conflict, Violence and Peace Processes, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2003.
Helmick, Raymond G. and Rodney Petersen, Eds. Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy and Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press, 2001.
Johnston, Douglas and Cynthia Sampson, Eds. Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Oxford University Press, 1994.
McLaughlin, Corinne and Gordon Davidson. Spiritual Politics: Changing the World from the Inside Out. Ballantine Books, 1994.
UNESCO Global Monitoring Report, 2009.
UNDP Arab Human Development Report, 2005.
UNICEF Investing in the Children of the Islamic World, 2005.
Vasquez, John, et. al., Eds. Beyond Confrontation: Learning Conflict Resolution in the Post-Cold War Era. The University of Michigan Press, 1995.
World Bank, Investing in All People: Educating Women in Developing Countries, 1994.