Donald Trumps Overture to Muslim World

Ziauddin Choudhury

After nearly two years of Muslim bashing as Presidential candidate when he accused
Islam and Muslims of hating the west-- even proposing a ban on Muslims entering
the US-- President Donald trump took a somersault of sorts in Riyadh this Sunday.
Addressing a gathering of fifty five heads of governments of Muslim countries from
an ornate hall Trump pivoted away from his earlier rhetoric of excoriating Muslims
and Islam that the world had come to associate him with. Instead, he called for a
coalition of Muslim countries to fight terrorism replacing his earlier phrase radical
Islam extremism with Islamist extremism (which he at times referred to as
Islamic terrorism). He described the fight against terrorism as one between good
and evil, and not as a fight between civilizations or religions. His appeal to the
gathering was to rise as one body to fight extremism as an aberration and referring
to Islam as a part of the great Abrahamic tradition.

Donald Trumps about turn on Muslim and Islam in Riyadh was unusual but not
entirely unexpected. Trump has been ambivalent about many of his campaign
promises since his inception as President. He has backed off from his promise to
build his famous wall with Mexico immediately after he became President. His threat
to deport eleven million of illegal immigrants has yet to take a tangible form. He has
withdrawn from his threat to punish China for what he called its unfair trade
practices with high tariff. His labeling of NATO as obsolete has not resurfaced. The
only tangible act on his promise to put a ban on Muslim travel was in the shape of
his executive order restricting issuance of visa to seven Muslim countries (later
educed to six). But that too has been stayed by court orders which his government
has yet to appeal.

While Trump has been short in the delivery or fulfillment of his campaign promises,
his administration and he himself have been embroiled in a litany of misdirected
actions of his own creation. Much of it emanates from a wide scale perception of
Russian influence in the Presidential election in Trumps favor and nexus of his
campaign staff with Russian officials during the campaign. Revelation of Russian
connection between his newly appointed National Security Advisor Michael Flynt led
to Flynns resignation within three weeks of his appointment. But as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation continued to pursue the Russian connection further with
possibilities of other Trump staffs involvement with Russia an irate Trump fired its
Director James Comey for vague and unprovable reasons.

Trumps visit to Saudi Arabia (and later to Israel, Italy, and Belgium) comes in the
wake of these domestic adversities that have been compounded by hearings in both
Senate and House committee investigation into the alleged Russian influence in last
Presidential elections. Trumps foreign trip could not have been in a better time for
him to escape the daily hounding by the press on the Russian connection and his
campaign staffs alleged complicity in this. And President Trump could not have
chosen a better place than Saudi Arabia, a kingdom grateful to the US for the
protection it provides, with decades of business with US oil and defense industries.
The pomp and splendor the Saudis bestowed on Trump befits a royalty which
pleased him enormously. More importantly for Trump, what better background than
Saudi Arabia to address a gathering of heads of Muslim governments to reset his
tone toward them?

But after all the rhetoric and overtures are done where will Trumps call lead to? Will
Trumps message for the Muslim countries of the world to unite and fight terrorism
lead to a coalition against religious terrorism and radicalism? Will the exhortation to
fight evil alone unite Muslim countries resolve? Or was Trump address mainly
meant to mollify Muslims who may have been affronted by his earlier remarks on
Muslims and Islam?

Trump address was in no doubt an about turn of his rhetoric on Muslims and Islam.
But in some respect it can be viewed as a pragmatic approach to fight terrorism, a
fight that cannot be fought alone by the US or European countries. However, there
are several imponderables in this call for unity to fight radicalism and terrorism.

First is the sectarian divide of the so called Muslim world between Sunni and Shia.
Although the latter accounts for less than a fifth of the total Muslim population, they
account for over ninety percent of Muslims in Iran and over sixty percent in Iraq.
Iran is a major power player in the Middle East, and although currently fragile Iraq is
potentially a big force in that zone. Iran is now an adversary of the Arab coalition as
also the United States. Iran could have been a partner in this war against
radicalism, but it is a pipe dream in current reality of the Middle East.

Second is the credibility of the host country from where Trump gave his speech to
contain Islamic radicalism. Saudi Arabia may be the richest Muslim country and it
may have spread some of its wealth to help other less fortunate Muslim countries.
But it has also spread in these countries a radical branch of IslamWahabism-- that
is wedded to the spread of radical thoughts and beliefs that have led to growth of a
host of seminaries in many Muslim countries which spawned zealots to fight in the
name of Islam. Prime examples are the Taliban in Pakistan. It is ironic that a call to
fight radical Islam would be made in a place that is nurtured in Wahabi ideology.

Third is the absence in many Muslim countries (apart from Iran) of democracy,
participatory government, and above of absence of the rule of law. It is not possible
for countries that do not have transparency in state actions, and respect for the rule
of law to wage a war against any organized groups without popular support. A war
against terrorism cannot succeed in a country where people cannot participate in
governance, or where popular will does not get reflected in its government.

President Donald Trump may have made an appeal from a genuine belief that his
call would get the Muslims work together. But to make this work he would need to
show that his words are not just meant to reset his earlier negative tone about
Muslims and Islam. He needs to show that his words are a reflection of his actual
beliefs that the United States is not an island, it is an integral part of the world, and
to fulfill the role of a leader it has to build bridges to reach others. As leader, the
US has to continue to work to foster democracy and rule of law all over. These are
important elements in fighting the war against radicalism, be it Islamic or otherwise.