I realize that quite some time has passed since my last posting (if you leave aside some small addenda on the Gegenseitige Provokationen and the Energiewende posts) and since some of you asked me to comment on Obama’s speech in Cairo I would like to say a few words on that adding maybe some more on the outcome of the EU elections later.
Although being rather critical of the Obama administration's foreign policy at first, especially for his choice of nominating Hillary Clinton as foreign minister, I must admit that I found his speech at Cairo University quite interesting and definitely moving into the right direction (it looks as if he had just taken one or two clues from my Master thesis, posted here just a few days before :)).
Although Obama does not ultimately break the vicious circle of 'culture politics' altogether by abiding by religious metaphors and quotes from the Holy Scriptures, he does so in a very smart way: he re-directs the apologists of a culture clash’s own weapons against them by taking them by their own word, which is probably a more successful strategy than simply rejecting any religious discourse altogether. At the same time, although unwillingly, he ridicules all efforts of a so called ‘inter-religious dialogue’ (at least between the three big monotheisms), which must fail not only for its obvious systemic faults (‘mono’ says it all, doesn’t it?) but also for the simple reason that all three Holy Scriptures can be used to either justify or condemn violence, as Obama – in tandem with Osama, I’m tempted to say - so beautifully exposes in his speech.
If you strip off all the nice pearls of wisdom there are yet a lot of statements worth a second look. In fact Obama addresses a number of political and economic issues in a remarkably concrete manner. The clearest sign of a break with the Orientalist-influenced policies of his predecessors consists in my eyes in his assertion on the impact of modernity on the societies of the former colonies. By conceding the double-edgedness of modern Western political reforms on those who rather had to suffer them than partaking in the new-gained freedoms, he definitely steps back from the neo-conservatives’ missionary vision of ‘bringing democracy’ to the underdeveloped societies of the ‘Muslim world’. By reminding Liberalism of its own principles he also unmasks some of the hypocrisy surrounding the issue of the veil, prevailing especially among European liberals and some new-born wannabe-women-liberators on the far right.
If careful enough not to take the bait from the numerous self-declared religious dignitaries and if understanding the popular revival of the religious for what it is, namely an expression of the very yearning for democracy when every other (political) expression is being oppressed, this could definitely open a serious channel for communcation with democratic movements in the region.
The economic part is unfortunately much weaker and seems in big parts being influenced by the international “non-profit”-NGOs active in the region consisting merely of a number of cosmetic retouchings.
That much said, without getting too excited, I think Obama makes some very good points here and it’s well worth listening to the speech, not only for its expected rhetoric brilliance. Yet it is still far too early to tell about the future of US foreign policy in the Middle East and one must not expect big changes over night.
Anyway, folks, here’s the speech:
...
ReplyDeleteDie Kommentarfunktion dieses Blog-Anbieters arbeitet nur mit dem IE von MS zuverlässig zusammen.
ReplyDeleteSehr ärgerlich.
Hallo Franz,
ReplyDeleteich weiß nicht, ob dir schon bewusst geworden ist, dass deine leicht arrogante Haltung, die sich immer schon im Besitz des Szepters der absoluten Wissenschaft wähnt, Teil des Problems ist. Denn leider geht dieser Kommentar am Kern der Rede vorbei, und ich denke, das hängt auch mit dem Umstand zusammen, dass ich in deiner Diplomarbeit keine Zeile fand, die dem Islam ausdrücklichen Respekt aussprach, ja auch nur Interesse für ihn ausdrückte. Obama hingegen geht den einzig alternativen gangbaren Weg, nämlich wirklich Ernst damit zu machen, den Anderen kennenzulernen und anzuerkennen - und nicht seine Kultur und seine Religion als einen Ballast darzustellen, dessen reale Wirkung nur darin besteht, Marionetten an die Macht zu spülen oder schlimmstenfalls - kontaminiert durch die Aufklärung des Westens -terroristische Monster zu gebären.
Dein dahingeworfener Kommentar zur angeblichen Dialogunfähigkeit der "Drei Großen Monotheistischen Weltreligionen" - "(‘mono’ says it all, doesn’t it?)" -, über dessen humoristische Komponente nur verbrüderte Ignoranten schmunzeln können, ist symptomatisch. Gemeint sind natürlich Judentum, Christentum und Islam: die "abrahamitischen" Religionen, die sich alle auf Abraham als den Stammvater der Juden beziehen und sich jeweils immer auf die Propheten der vorhergehenden Religion berufen. Sie sind nicht verbunden durch die Eigenart, zufälligerweise die Zahl der verehrten Götter zu teilen, in diesem Falle 1, sie beten auch nicht Götter an, die miteinander vergleichbar wären - Nein - Sie beten als Gott EIN- und DIE SELBE Person an, die Person, die Mose den Eigennamen Jahwe offenbarte.
"Offensichtlich", mein lieber Franz, ist, dass diese drei Religionen untrennbar miteinander verbrüdert sind, und wer heute noch nicht begriffen hat, dass das erlösende Gespräch nur in der Sphäre dieser drei erfolgen kann, der ist der Grund des Problems und die eigentliche Wurzel der Sprachunfähigkeit.
Peter.