Related Resources

Allow me to begin by praising the organizers of this most impressive forum for the thoughtfulness that has gone into structuring the program for this coming week. The range, but most importantly the quality of the topics to be addressed in an interactive dialogue says something about Colorado and more broadly about the American system.

Underlying many of the discussions this week is a prevalent theme –change. We certainly hear the commitment to change in the campaign speeches of presidential candidates. In fact our nation’s upcoming election in November will most certainly bring change.

Peaceful change through a selection process involving all people is what makes the United States strong. It is the essence of democracy.

There will be change in the White House. And importantly, there will be change in the way we conduct foreign policy. The nature and degree of that change is, of course, what voters will influence in selecting the next president.

I will spare you yet another political campaign speech. The Middle East Institute is a non-partisan think tank. We do not advocate for any country or policy but rather strive to promote better understanding and knowledge about the Middle East among American citizens.

But, because rethinking our foreign policy is inevitable, and because I believe it is absolutely necessary, what I would like to do instead is to try to understand how we ought to reshape our relations with the Muslim world.

It begins with understanding how Muslims perceive the United States and our policies toward them.

The first reference point in any discussion of the global Muslim world is to acknowledge that it is a very diverse community.

Of the more than one BILLION Muslims worldwide, only a minority is Arab – about 340 million populate the 22 nations that make up the Arab League – only about 20 percent of the global Muslim population.

The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia -- in Southeast Asia. There are more Muslims in Hindu India --150 million -- than in the five Arab states of North Africa AND Saudi Arabia, the home of the holiest Muslim sites.

A second key point is that too often our media and politicians focus on an extremely small minority of extremists as if they are talking about the large, diverse community. In fact, the vast majority of the world’s mainstream Muslims are decidedly non-violent.

A recent Gallup poll that statistically covered over one billion Muslims revealed that 93% of Muslims worldwide -- nine out of ten Muslims -- found the 9-11 attack to be completely unjustified. That minority 7% then could be called the politically radical element. But even within this small group a fragment (only 13%) finds civilian deaths acceptable.

Who are the Muslim majority? What are the one billion people like?

Like most Americans, the overwhelming majority are family-oriented, religious people who practice their faith while coping with the modern world.

More than half the population of the Middle East is under 25. They want a better education, they want jobs and housing so that they can marry and provide for their families.

Polling shows they want to improve law and order, and promote democratic ideals in their political systems.

There are a few local exceptions, but the clear majorities in the Muslim world support the same legal rights for men and women, including holding a job, voting, and participation in government.

For millions of Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace. They condemn the violent practices of al Qaeda and they are outraged at the notion that mosques are used to promote violence.

When we speak of what we have in common, it is most interesting to note that -- according to a 2007 Gallup poll -- political freedom and freedom of speech are what Muslims most admire about the West – the same answers given by Americans.

There are other “American” values that Muslims admire, including our educational system and our entrepreneurship. Over the years, they have flocked to our universities to learn the American way of doing business.

Yet, despite the many values that we share in common, especially the abhorrence of violence, many mainstream Muslims hold a startlingly low opinion of the United States.

A Pew Research Center survey last summer showed that three out of four Turks, Jordanians and Egyptians had unfavorable views of the United States. So did one out of every two Lebanese, Kuwaitis and Moroccans.

How can this be true if they admire American values so much?

Muslims everywhere did after all stand shoulder to shoulder with us in the first days and months following 9-11. I was Ambassador in Pakistan at that time and can attest to the heartfelt outpouring of grief and sympathy for the American people by Pakistanis and Muslims throughout the region. The majority of Muslims was thunderstruck by the cruelty of the terrorist act and saw it as an attack on humanity itself.

The explanation for this apparent contradiction can be found in our own actions and policies. Their expressions of solidarity following 9-11 were rebuffed.

Suddenly, Muslims who had admired the United States, studied in our universities and done business with our companies encountered harsh racial profiling and collective punishment. Getting a student visa became nearly impossible. Businessmen decided to invest elsewhere rather than suffer humiliation at US customs.

In February 2006, Dubai Ports World encountered exactly this situation. Rather than sift through the political maelstrom it found itself in, the company decided to invest elsewhere.

The UAE was the first Middle Eastern state to permanently locate US customs and border protection officers in their ports to inspect containers before shipment to the United States. The UAE has been a key ally in the fight against Saddam Hussein, and since 1990 the UAE has entertained more port visits by US naval vessels than any other nation.

The US not only lost out on a significant foreign investment opportunity, but ran a serious risk of offending a long-time ally in the region.

One story that widely circulates in the region is about an incident in which American security police stormed a commercial airliner with a heavy show of force in search of a passenger whose name popped up on a watch list. When they found the so-called terrorist, the six year old was convulsed in tears.

To Muslims in the Middle East, the “War on Terror” sounds like a declaration of war on Islam. “You are either with us or against us” gives the distinct impression that anyone who opposes US policy is necessarily a terrorist.

I often hear from Muslims abroad, but also from American-Muslims, a deep frustration at the Administration’s call for so-called moderate Muslims to rein in or control extremist violence.

They feel they have little control over the radical fringe. More to the point, the suggestion by the American government that mainstream Muslims own the extremists, or that the extremists are an expression of legitimate religious Islam, grossly misunderstands the peaceful nature of both the religion of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims worldwide.

This perceived bias in our official statements and foreign policy, combined with a history of missteps, inaction, and double standards by the US has severely damaged our relations with this region of the world.

The extensive Gallup poll published last year and well presented in the book Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed provides the most pointed suggestion for how the US could begin to repair our damaged dialogue.

In their own voices and in great numbers Muslims around the world said the West could improve relations with the Middle East through understanding -- by voicing respect for Islam.

In short, we must begin to restore our credibility and the trust between our peoples by gaining a better understanding of the forces that unite us, rather than divide us.

Regrettably, we have much work to do here at home. A recent Pew Research study reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence actually increased from 25% in 2002 to 45% today.

When Gallup asked Americans what they most admire about Muslim societies, the most frequent response was “nothing”. The second most frequent response was “I don’t know”. These two answers accounted for about two thirds of the Americans surveyed.

Tensions run much deeper than resentment of perceived ignorance and irrationality by the Americans post 9-11. Developing anger against the United States for many in the Middle East is not “because they hate our freedom”, as President Bush has suggested, but rather because – in their eyes – our rhetoric on democracy, liberty, fairness and justice has not matched our actions.

Many American would be surprised to know that what Muslims most admire about the United States is our political freedom, liberty, and freedom of speech and especially a fair judicial system.

At the same time, they do not think we are serious about supporting democracy in their region of the world. The majorities believe we support autocratic leaders placing commercial and national interests above our stated values.

Only about 5 to 10% regard the United States as trustworthy, friendly, or a nation that treats other countries respectfully, according to Gallup.

Specifically, Muslims point to history, to times when Islamist parties were declared the victor and we criticized the results. This happened when the Islamic Salvation Front won the 1992 popular election in Algeria and again when Hamas claimed victory at the polls in Gaza in 2006. Each time the US was seen to be shunning the victor.

We pay a cost when Muslims view our foreign policy as holding a double standard –preaching democracy, sometimes imposing it by military force, but then repudiating democracy when we disagree with the results of elections in Muslim states.

We pay a price in the Muslim world when we are perceived to personify our relations by investing in individual leaders rather than democracy or rule of law. This aptly describes our current unpopularity in Pakistan where the United States is widely viewed as attempting to prop up President Musharraf despite his repudiation at the ballot box in February.

At this point, some might say, “so what?” We are a strong and independent nation and can live with unpopularity among peaceful majority populations.

I disagree. I believe if we understand the grievances of the many, we can deal with the forces that drive a very few to extreme acts.

It becomes critical for us to understand what compels radical extremists within the global Muslim communities to commit acts of terror and sacrificial suicide.

Marc Sageman is a former CIA case officer and psychologist who now writes searing studies on the motivations of militant jihadists. He contends that they are not all marginalized or misfits. Rather the current generation of militant jihadists are “part of a violent born-again social movement”, motivated by idealism. Sageman describes them generally as educated, idealistic young people seeking glory by fighting for fairness and justice. Or at least, fairness and justice as they perceive it.

As we reshape our relations with the Muslim world, it is very important that we get this point right.

The White House’s National Strategy for Combating Terrorism contends that “the terrorism we confront today springs from political alienation, grievances that can be blamed on others, subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation, and an ideology that justifies murder.”

As you can see, these are vastly different assumptions. To be effective, our counterterrorism strategy must be based on a full and accurate understanding of the composition, motivations and beliefs of our adversary.

Let us face reality. We cannot eliminate terrorism altogether. Terrorist acts will happen, but they do not and will not threaten the existence of our great state and our values.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not an attractive ideology on a par with socialism or communism. It is a horrific tactic used by the desperate and the weak.

The measure of our success will not be when every last al Qaeda terrorist is killed but rather when our ideology is seen to be more attractive than one of violence and fear, and when our actions are seen to match our words.

So, what advice would I want to give the next President for repairing our fractured friendships in the Middle East?

First, and most important, we must educate our own population to the true nature of the Muslim community. We must alter our policies and official statements to show value and respect for Islam. This is not something we send diplomats abroad to do, but an effort that begins at home.

Second, we must reach out to our allies and supporters in the vast Muslim mainstream by helping to address the genuine grievances of Middle East Youth. We must not only talk about democracy, we must act to support it – to support good governance, economic opportunity, and political participation, rule of law. The US needs to champion the rights of the people – all people – rather than appear to pursue only our own narrow national interests.

Third, an equally pressing priority is to restore America’s credibility as an honest broker in the Israeli – Palestinian dispute. All parties know the outlines of a deal. What we badly need now is the political will to support those on both sides to hammer it out. For the people in the region, this is the key to diminishing the appeal of radicals. The alternative will only be more violence and more terror.

Finally, we must eliminate those aspects of our policies that do more harm than good. The extremely small group that identifies itself as Al Qaeda, perhaps only a few thousand out of 1.3 billion people, is mobilized to commit terror for reasons we can address. In addition to the call to defend Palestinians against injustices, Al Qaeda recruits young idealists with the clarion call of the intrusion of foreign troops on their Muslim soil.

There is a very delicate balance between continued American troops to shore up fledging democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the counterproductive effect. Our presence many in fact be retarding local solutions. We have not found this balance yet. I believe we must look past the largely domestic arguments of “to surge or not to surge” and evaluate the real impact of our presence.

The critical test for the next President – regardless of party – is to construct a new relationship with the Middle East based upon ongoing, accurate assessment of the status of that relationship. Rebuilding trust will depend much less on how we feel about them and more on how they view the impact of our policies on their own societies.

This is not the time to close our doors and minds to the rest of the world, but is time to move beyond the rhetoric of terror and fear. Our security is linked to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond. And their stability ultimately depends upon whether the aspirations of the people are fulfilled.

The United States has lost ground in our foreign policy and we pay a dear cost. But we can fix ourselves, and we will. Each candidate for president – regardless of party -- pledges to restore our global credibility and influence.

And that is the strength of the American system: our ability to re-evaluate our policies in a genuine spirit of self-criticism and belief that our system, including our foreign policy, can be improved through initiative and reform. But that opportunity must be seized now.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski warns in his book, A Second Chance --, America will not get a third chance.