moresque
 
 
Sunday, 21 Mar 2010
 
 

Latest News


letter1A.jpg
6a00d8345204a169e20120a9516ef9970b-800wi
Senate1.jpg
minis.jpg
map.jpg
sam9.jpg
leuh.jpg
Boonstra.jpg
hurra.jpg
focus.jpg
port.jpg
abu_bakr.jpg
07artsnj_2-articleInline.jpg
touns.jpg
morocco-eu.jpg
tazzla3.jpg
morocco-eu.jpg
6a00d8345204a169e201310f54da51970c-800wi
mekn.jpg
40.jpg
Ma-eu.png
moro3.jpg
zoghby2.jpg
nyt1.jpg
letter24.jpg
tifinagh.jpg
suff.jpg
andre.jpg
elkoudia.jpg
camp2.jpg
mosque5.jpg
Khalidg.jpg
amaz2.jpg
algg.jpg
recr_ethnic_work_force.jpg
Solar2.jpg
expel.jpg
4b684cdd5983a_Hindi_Zahra.jpg
map.jpg
Obama's Diplomatic Speech in Cairo Mangled History

tweeter rss

Lawrence A. Peskin

Reuter


In his speech at Cairo University the president noted that "Islam has always been a part of America's story." He cited Morocco's early recognition of American independence in 1778. He also reminded his audience of the U.S.-Tripoli treaty of 1796-97, which denied that the United States bore any "enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity” of Muslims.

In so doing, the president created a mythic tale of longstanding friendship and understanding on the part of Americans and Islamic North Africans. Although it may have diplomatic uses, this tale has little historical basis.

President Obama correctly stated that Morocco was the first nation to recognize American independence. However, he omitted the fact that shortly thereafter Moroccans captured an American ship and its crew to force the United States to sign a pay-for-peace treaty with Morocco's ruler.

The payment did stop Morocco from capturing more Americans, but soon its next-door neighbor, Algeria, began capturing American ships. Ultimately it held more than 100 American crew members for ransom, some for a dozen years. Nor did a similar arrangement with Tripoli stop that country from capturing more Americans.

The president's speech implied that the Tripoli treaty was an example of early American-Islamic tolerance. He correctly noted that the treaty asserted that the United States had no conflict with Islam, but he omitted the treaty's assertion that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." Quoting these words would have won points in Cairo but would have infuriated the Christian right at home.

Despite the president's implication, the United States did not assert its acceptance of Islam and its non-Christian character as an early statement of toleration or proto-secular humanism. Rather, it was a strategy to dissuade North Africans from attacking American ships. Under the Constitution, the United States had no established religion. Therefore,it was not technically a Christian state and, arguably, not a legitimate target of the jihad against Christians that Islamic states used to justify attacking European ships.

Speaking to his Cairo audience, President Obama had good reasons to use Moroccan recognition of the United States and the Tripoli treaty as an early example of American friendship with Islam. However, the diplomacy of the 1790s did not lead to tolerance or friendship. Islamic states, including Tripoli, continued to capture American ships. And, as the United States built a more powerful navy, it frequently sent warships to North Africa.

In fact, the United States fought its first overseas wars against Tripoli in 1801-05 and Algeria in 1815. In the end, it was because of these military and naval victories, rather than the diplomacy of the 1790s, that the North Africans stopped capturing American vessels.

It's easy to understand why the president didn't want to provide his Cairo audience with the details of this story of fear, violence and American military triumph. What's more interesting is that the president felt the need to refer to early American-Islamic contact at all.

President Obama touts himself as an agent of change, both at home and in the Middle East. In his speech he called for a "new beginning" in American-Islamic relations, based on "mutual interest and respect." But, along with this plea to rectify a past filled with violence and intolerance, he rewrote early American-Islamic history to create a mythic past of friendship and tolerance.

The president no doubt hoped this rhetoric would convince his conservative audience that his "new beginning" might not be so radical after all. Instead, it would just mark a return to a more peaceful, tolerant past.

It's bad history, but if the president can convince the Islamic world it will be brilliant diplomacy.

This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.

 

 

Mr. Lawrence A. Peskin is an associate professor of history at Morgan State University, is the author of Captives and Countrymen: Barbary Slavery and the American Public, 1785-1816, and a writer for the History News Service.

 


 

While MoroccoBoard.com encourages discussion on all subjects, including sensitive ones, the comments posted are solely the views of those submitting them. MoroccoBoard.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with the ideas, views, or opinions voiced in these comments. This is a moderated forum. Comments deemed abusive, offensive, or those containing profanity may not be published.

 

Comments (5)add comment

Hmimamrmad said:

A Muslim Nation's Successful Election
A Muslim Nation's Successful Election
Rachel Ehrenfeld, 06.17.09, 11:55 AM ET

It is 131 degrees Fahrenheit in Marrakesh, Morocco, yet a slow but steady stream of voters--many of whom are women--enter the schoolyard to cast their ballots at the polling stations for the municipal elections.

On June 12, 2009, 1,503 communities chose their representatives in orderly, transparent elections, according to Ahmed Herzenni, chairman of Morocco's human rights watchdog, CCDH. His opinion was shared by more than 150 foreign observers, including the International Strategic Studies Association from Washington, D.C., and the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD).

Unlike the Soviet-style election in April that led to the reelection of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika in Algeria, Morocco's eastern neighbor, or the controversial and violent presidential election in Iran, Morocco's election was "fair and free."

The meticulously planned and executed election marked an important step in King Mohammed VI's reform plans to decentralize governance and empower local communities. With 6% economic growth, large investment in education and development, $21.11 billion in foreign debt and $27.29 billion in reserve, Morocco has weathered the global economic storm better than most. In introducing a new form of governance, the king's reforms are designed to increase the participation of all citizens in political and economic systems.

Morocco's interior minister, Chakib Benmoussa, an MIT graduate, led the planning, preparing and training of election officials and volunteers. A budget of close to $62 million was allocated to plan, organize and administer the elections. Special efforts were made to include more women in local politics. To overcome the high level of illiteracy and encourage voting, the ballots included pictures of the political parties, which were well advertised in advance.

These efforts yielded impressive results: Local elections attracted 15.4% more voters than the last parliamentary elections, in 2007. More than 7 million voters (52.4%) elected 27,795 council members; 61% of these were newly elected. The number of women elected rose significantly, from 0.4% in the previous local elections in 2003 to 12.3%. Most of these women are under the age of 35, and 75% of them have higher than secondary education.

"We were impressed because we've seen very clearly that people were well-acquainted with the rules and were well-prepared for elections," noted Leslie Lebl, a senior ACD fellow, one of the international observers. "Everything took place in very good conditions."

Jean-Charles Brisard, a French observer, noted the "professionalism" of the election supervising teams and said he was impressed by the "great sense of responsibility" demonstrated by participating officials and volunteers.

Significantly, there was a high turnout of voters in the Moroccan Western Sahara region. Though this area is still the subject of international dispute, the local inhabitants' active participation demonstrated their self-identification as Moroccan citizens. The Saharans clearly prefer Morocco's reform-oriented government to Algeria's repressive regime.

Morocco's efforts to unify its diverse population of Arabs, Berbers, Jews and other small minorities are impressive. To attract more members, the Islamist Justice and Development party abended its religious rhetoric. Although it gained relatively more votes in the big cities, it came in sixth, with only 5% of the votes. In contrast, the royalist, modernist, and reform-oriented Authenticity and Modernity Party came in first with roughly 18% of the votes and won almost 22% of seats.

In this Muslim country--where Jews and Christians can practice their religions freely, conversion from Islam is permitted by law, a big church stands in the center of the capital Rabat, and alcohol is freely sold in the supermarkets--the regionalization reforms underway promise that Morocco will become even more tolerant. Indeed, Morocco should be used as model by its neighbors in the region and beyond.

Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, is director of the American Center for Democracy.


http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/islam-election-king-mohammed-opinions-contributors-morocco.html

06/17/09

mazagan said:

bad history/good history
In order to assert itself amongst the world nation and pursue its expansion, the US had to invade, annex, foment trouble, and wage wars in virtually every corner of the Earth. It was not a “bad history” with just the Muslim world, even neutral peaceful, cheese making Denmark under pressure ceded its Caribbean dominions to US pressure, not to mention more open and prominent conflicts with the Apache nation, Mexico, Spain, covert intervention in the Katanga, etc… and the list is endless.
Do we call all that “bad history”?
Morocco saw direct US military intervention twice:
-In 1904, when they blockaded the port of Tangiers. Their intervention helped raise the stature of the dissident or freedom fighter Al Raisouni. To the great satisfaction of the people of Tangiers, this hastened the demise of the corrupt pasha and the humiliation of his French and German protectors.
-In 1942, Morocco was under French occupation, the Americans battled the pro Vichy French forces to land in Casablanca. The colonial rule was starving the Moroccan population, sending available grain to the metropolis. After they subdued the French forces, providing a little revenge for the local populace, the Americans proceeded to distribute goods and food, feat immortalized by Houcine Slaoui:”zin wal ain zarga”.
In both instances the Americans intervened for their own interest, against worst oppressor of the Moroccan population.
One thing for sure, Obama did define America as a Muslim country which is a first. There are more Muslims here than in Jordan or Libya. He did acknowledge the 7 million Muslim Americans in his speech.
Contrary to his predecessor, that had no problem mentioning the word Crusade, he is trying to reverse the collusion course where American civilization and the Muslim world are heading.
According to CNN poll, 48% of Americans have unfavorable view of Islam and 78% of Muslims have unfavorable view of America.
I don’t think he’ll stand to gain much on the diplomatic front; but it is a major shift on the moral and intellectual front.
06/16/09

MBoarder said:

...
There is lots of interpreting that goes on in describing historical events thus it is no surprise that the deeper one digs, the more questions arise about what is pure fact vs. inference vs. interpretation.
06/16/09

brahim A said:

...
by the way obama is not the only one using these selective historical approach to promote Moroccan -American friendship...the ministry of education in morocco has used the same exact thing in in its school textbooks for years...
06/16/09

brahim A said:

...
by the way obama is not the only one using these selective historical approch to promote moroccan -american friendship...the ministry of education in morocco has used the same exact thing in in its school textbooks for years...
06/16/09

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy