Cynics cast the speech as little more than a public relationing exercise that “repackaged” unchanged US policies. While the speech may not have broken new policy ground and was purposively short on specifics, this rejectionist view minimizes the import of President Obama’s effort at a rapprochement with the Muslim world and the possibilities this opens up.

President Obama himself acknowledged that one speech could not wipe away years of mistrust. But the vision he set out, of charting a cooperative course on shared challenges marks a sharp departure from the with-us-or against-us paradigm of his predecessor. In seeking to build coalitions of consent, the President is also adapting to a   globalized and interdependent world in which US power has been diminishing.

The Cairo speech marked President Obama’s latest and most significant outreach to the Muslim world. These public diplomacy initiatives, capped by the Cairo address, have several interrelated objectives, which include: a) to repair the image and standing of the US among Muslims that was especially battered during the Bush years; b) to create the atmosphere and space to restart the Middle East peace process; c) engage vigorously in the battle of ideas to drain support in the Muslim world for violent extremism; and d) to challenge Muslim communities to rethink some of their positions on issues ranging from religious freedom to Israel.

These objectives also reflect a national security imperative for the US: to defuse and neutralize the threat from violent extremism and reverse the rising tide of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world which feeds extremism. That President Obama refrained from using the word terrorism in his speech represented an effort to break from the overarching template of US engagement with the Islamic world in the post 9/11 years. This aims at signaling that Washington’s ties with Muslim countries will not be defined by this single prism even though, as President Obama declared in his speech, the US would “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat” to its security. And he reiterated what he told the Turkish Parliament: that America is not and never will be, “at war with Islam.”

He listed seven issue areas which the US and the Muslim world had to confront jointly: violent extremism, the Arab-Israeli dispute, the nuclear issue and Iran, democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights and economic opportunity. The Cairo speech represents the most forthright public appraisal ever undertaken by a Western leader of the reasons why relations between the US and the Muslim world have plummeted to their lowest ever point.

In his review of this troubled legacy, he mentioned colonialism, the proxy relationships of the cold war era, the wars of “choice” and “necessity” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the measures America took after 9/11 which were “contrary to its ideals” (Guantanamo), Palestine and the tensions generated by modernity and globalisation.

Disappointingly, the speech did not show similar understanding and empathy for South and South West Asia. The history review made no mention of the US   contribution — albeit unwitting — to the toxic mix of problems bequeathed to the region by the long campaign waged against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Acknowledgement of the US role in waging this war of unintended consequences would have helped to remove the burden of history and signal to people in Pakistan that Washington was willing to accept its share of responsibility for   the turmoil in the region.The speech was also silent on Kashmir. Mention of the issue would have been consistent with Obama’s own assertions before his election that a Kashmir solution was essential for regional peace.

The centerpiece of his speech was the Palestinian–Israeli dispute. Decades of unevenhanded policies that placed the security of Israel above any concern for justice for the Palestinian people and international law, alienated Muslims from the West. It is here that President Obama departed decisively from the past in signaling his determination to promote a settlement in as evenhanded a manner as can be expected from an American President. Although he did not lay out a detailed plan for Middle East peace, he set out the parameters for one. In his tone and language — including “occupation” and “daily humiliations” of the Palestinian people — he went further than any previous American President in aligning with the Muslim narrative. While describing his country’s bond with Israel as “unbreakable”, he delivered the sharpest public rebuke ever to Tel Aviv for its policy of settlements on the occupied West Bank. Whether or not this marks an end to Washington’s unqualified support for Israel, it does pitch the US as a neutral broker for the first time. The litmus test of his promised change in relations with the Muslim world will be his ability to press Israel to accept a two state solution consistent with the 2002 Saudi-framed Arab Peace Initiative. In coming months President Obama can be expected to engage in a battle of wills with the hard line Israeli leadership at a time when opinion polls in Israel show that the majority of people support a freeze on settlements.

The speech dealt with Afghanistan and Pakistan in a rather sketchy way; the impression it conveyed was of the lack of a strategic framework for Afghanistan. While President Obama justified the 2001 military intervention in Afghanistan as a war of necessity, he rationalized the continued deployment of American troops there as aimed at preventing “violent extremists from killing Americans.” But he did stress that the US did not seek a permanent military presence in that country—a fact, which will be welcomed in Pakistan and beyond. President Obama reiterated that military power alone was not the answer to problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the strategy he has rolled out so far remains at odds with this, placing too much reliance on military escalation, as signified by the troop surge in Afghanistan and intensified Drone attacks in Pakistan.

President Obama’s eloquent call to “re-imagine” the world in which the US and the Muslim world partner to confront common challenges on the basis of shared values holds much promise. Whether his speech will turn a new page in a turbulent relationship will depend on what concrete policy actions will follow. It will also depend on how Muslim leaders take up the political and intellectual challenge and engage the US to chart a new and hopeful course.

Maleeha Lodhi served as Pakistan’s 
ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom