MOSCOW CONSIDERS THE PRESIDENT'S CAIRO SPEECH SIGNIFICANT,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 001582 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL IS RS XF SUBJECT: MOSCOW CONSIDERS THE PRESIDENT'S CAIRO SPEECH SIGNIFICANT, BUT NOT REVOLUTIONARY ¶1. Summary: The President's June 4 Cairo speech received a generally positive response in the Moscow press. Russia's Muslim leaders were similarly upbeat, and they expressed hope for better relations between West and East and an inclusive global conversation. Many commentators questioned whether the speech will truly lead to a new era in U.S. relations with the Muslim world, and some argued that just one speech cannot overcome the serious rift that has developed. Georgiy Mirskiy, a Middle East expert at the World Economy and International Relations Institute, warned that the President's pressure on Tel Aviv could have a detrimental effect on the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Pro-Kremlin daily Izvestiya noted similarities between the President's speech and comments made over the years by Putin, implying that Washington had followed Moscow's lead on Middle East policy. End summary. -------------- Russia's Muslims Generally Upbeat -------------- ¶2. Russia's Muslim leaders were generally upbeat on the content of the President's June 4 speech at Cairo University. Rushan Abbyasov, head of the International Department of the Union of Muftis of Russia, said the speech could become an impulse for new relations between West and East. Abbyasov noted that this was particularly important for Russians, who have always been a bridge between these two civilizations. Looking forward to the President's upcoming visit to Russia, Gulnur Gaziyev, a professor at the Moscow Islamic University and the primary editor of the site www.muslims.ru, said it is important to understand what the new Administration's foreign policy will be, and that in the midst of the global crisis, "into the old single polar world must enter a new philosophy, which does not ignore the views of single countries or ethnic or religious groups." -------------- Significant, But Not Revolutionary -------------- ¶3. The President's speech received a generally positive reception within the Russian media and among commentators who deemed the speech historic, although they asked if it would be enough to overcome hostility toward the U.S. within the Muslim world. The Russian press also used the speech as an opportunity to discuss the President's willingness to pursue diplomacy abroad, even with "unfriendly" countries, which several media outlets described as a departure from the Bush Administration's approach to diplomacy. ¶4. The President's speech competed for media attention with the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, which dominated television. Channel 1 and NTV, two of the national TV networks, reported on the speech, as did all major newspapers. -------------- Questioning the Speech's Effectiveness -------------- ¶5. Several media outlets lauded the speech as important, but were skeptical that the President's words were enough for a new beginning in the U.S. relationship with the Muslim world. Rossiya, a government-owned television station that broadcasts nationally, argued that the rift in the relationship was too wide to improve relations anytime soon, while Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a government-owned newspaper, commented, "[It] may go down in history as the day when Obama knocked on the door of the Arab world closed to his predecessors. But surely, one speech is not enough...." ¶6. Pointing to U.S. actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Yevgeniy Satanovskiy, President of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, argued in Komsomolskaya Pravda that when the President said the U.S. wants to improve relations with Muslims, "Washington's words conflict with its deeds." He also noted the difficulty inherent in the President's expression of support for the Palestinian people when the U.S. maintained a strategic relationship with Israel. ¶7. Several reports discussed the potential impact of the President's speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and covered the responses from pro-Israel groups. Georgiy Mirskiy, a Middle East expert at the World Economy and International Relations Institute, commented in Vremya Novostei, a centrist, politically focused newspaper, that the President must understand that Netanyahu's return to power has not helped the chances for resuming peace talks, and cautioned that pressing Tel Aviv too hard to make concessions could "ruin all hopes for resuming the peace talks." -------------- What about Russia? -------------- ¶8. Dmitri Babich, writing for RIA Novosti, thought that the President did not deviate from the "guidelines of U.S. policy in the MOSCOW 00001582 002 OF 002 Middle East and Afghanistan," but did demonstrate his ability as a "salesman of unsalable stock." Citing the President's need for the support of Arabs and Israelis, as well as Americans, Babich said that the President must demonstrate progress in the peace process soon. Russia, he argued, is crucial to resolving conflicts in the Middle East, and he speculated that the President's next speech to the Muslim world would specifically mention Russia's role. ¶9. Izvestiya, a pro-Kremlin daily, thought the President's comments on Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq sounded almost identical to statements made by Putin and other Russian officials over the last decade. Referring to the speech's contents, Izvestiya wrote, "What has become a revelation for the West has already been proposed by Moscow a long time ago." BEYRLE