Lebanon Election Outcome and Obama’s Public Diplomacy

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Last weekend, contrary to what experts inside and outside of Lebanon expected, an American- and Western-backed coalition scored a clear victory over a bloc led by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, a terrorist organization and a political party. Some analysts point to President Obama’s and his administration’s outreach to the Muslim world, especially his recent trip to the Middle East and his widely publicized speech in Cairo, as  contributing factors to the surprising election results.

Others speak of an “Obama effect” in the sense that he managed to improve America’s image in that part of the world. While nobody knows for sure whether and how the Obama administration’s direct diplomacy and public diplomacy affected voters in Lebanon and people elsewhere in the region, it is telling that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, have repeatedly attacked President Barack Obama and likened him to his predecessor President George W. Bush. Bin Laden and Zawahiri used their still intact propaganda machine before Obama’s speech in Cairo to release audiotapes that claimed that fellow-Muslims and –Arabs would not be fooled by the president’s well chosen words. As al-Zawahiri put it, "His [President Obama’s] bloody messages were received and they are still coming and they will not be obstructed either by the public relations campaigns, the shenanigan visits, or the articulate words.” Obviously, the al-Qaeda leaders do not believe their own arguments; if they are convinced that Obama’s public diplomacy was, is, and will not be well received by Arabs and Muslim, why did they accelerate their message output of late?

To be sure, most Muslims’ and Arabs’ negative America image has not fundamentally changed and will not fundamentally change because of Obama’s recent trip with the memorable Cairo speech as highpoint. But according to the Gallup organization’s surveys, in most Arab countries approval of U.S. leaders was markedly up in March of this year and thus well before Obama’s appearances in the Middle East and his Cairo speech compared to the last poll during the Bush presidency in June 2008.

Public relations, public diplomacy, propaganda. These are different terms with the same meaning, namely, efforts to persuade others to embrace a particular message, opinion, ideology, religion, etc. After 9/11, the war against terrorism was also fought on the public relations front in that Al Qaeda leader bin Laden and his team on the one hand and U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration on the other hand were engaged in bellicose mass-mediated, rhetorical exchanges that emphasized differences between the two sides and those they spoke for or claimed to speak for. 

Obama’s inauguration remarks, subsequence speeches by the president and others in the administration, and most of all the Cairo speech ended the rhetorical feud between the U.S. president and terrorist-in-chief bin Laden. Obama has shown that he is not interested in a propaganda war with Al Qaeda leaders. As a consequence, there is a stark contrast between the two sides in that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri continue to send hate messages that magnify what divides the Judeo-Christian West and the Arab-Muslim East, whereas Obama’s conciliatory messages emphasize what unites without minimizing the existential threats posed by a relative small number of Arab and Muslim extremists. Commentators, who complain that Obama bends over backwards to appease Muslims and Arabs but does not condemn jihadi violence, should read or reread the transcript of his Cairo speech.

He made the following, unifying and necessary remarks:    
“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

But he also expressed firmly what needed to be said:   
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

To return to the elections in Lebanon, it seems that more voters liked Obama’s unifying message rather than the divisive messages of bin Laden and others. For New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman the Lebanese election “results were fascinating: President Barack Obama defeated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.” No doubt that the president of Iran wanted another outcome; after all, Iran is the major state sponsor of Hezbollah. As victory of the Hezbollah-led bloc would have been a good omen for Ahmadinejad’s own chances in this Friday’s Iranian elections. If reformist Mir Hussein Moussavi manages to beat Ahmadinejad, his victory could be another indication that Obama’s messages are more persuasive than are bin Laden’s and Ahmadinjagd’s.

Comments

[Eric Chen]

Professor Nacos,

This post reminds me of my responses to your post about President Obama's inauguration speech: http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2009/01/the-promise-of-americas-and-obamas-patchwork-heritage-.html#comments

It is heartening that rather than depart from his predecessor, President Obama continues to move forward President Bush's liberal agenda in the War on Terror, and sounding remarkably similar to Bush in the process. Of course, that's not unique to Bush and Obama; President Bush moved forward with Operation Iraqi Freedom using the case that was essentially formulated under President Clinton.

Here's an excerpt from President Bush's June 2, 2004 speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9946-2004Jun2.html

(It's worth reading the entire speech; while dated in places, it is instructive of the Bush-Obama liberal agenda in this war.)

"This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants.

This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that ennobles men and women and forbids the shedding of innocent blood.

Instead, this is a clash of political visions.

In the terrorist vision of the world, the Middle East must fall under the rule of radical governments, moderate Arab states must be overthrown, nonbelievers must be expelled from Muslim lands and the harshest practice of extremist rule must be universally enforced. In this vision, books are burned, terrorists are sheltered, women are whipped and children are schooled in hatred and murder and suicide.

Our vision is completely different. We believe that every person has a right to think and pray and live in obedience to God and conscience, not in frightened submission to despots.

We believe that societies find their greatness by encouraging the creative gifts of their people, not in controlling their lives and feeding their resentments. And we have confidence that people share this vision of dignity and freedom in every culture because liberty is not the invention of Western culture, liberty is the deepest need and hope of all humanity.

The vast majority of men and women in Muslim societies reject the domination of extremists like Osama bin Laden. They're looking to the world's free nations to support them in their struggle against a violent minority who want to impose a future of darkness across the Middle East.

We will not abandon them to the designs of evil men. We will stand with the people of that region as they seek their future in freedom."