Pentingnya Membangun Rekonsiliasi “Westphalia Arab”

Meratapi karut-marut situasi di dunia Arab sejak meletupnya Musim Semi Arab 2010-2011 hingga saat ini, beberapa waktu terakhir muncul wacana dari sejumlah cendekiawan Arab tentang pentingnya membangun "Westphalia Arab" dalam upaya mengakhiri situasi karut-marut tersebut.

Perang saudara di banyak negara Arab dan konflik sesama negara, serta keterlibatan negara-negara Arab dalam pertarungan geopolitik selama hampir satu dekade terakhir, telah mengundang intervensi kekuatan regional, seperti Turki dan Iran, hingga kekuatan internasional, seperti Rusia dan Amerika Serikat (AS).

Iran kini sudah mengontrol empat ibu kota Arab, yaitu Baghdad (ibu kota Irak), Damaskus (ibu kota Suriah), Beirut (ibu kota Lebanon), dan Sana'a (ibu kota Yaman). Turki saat ini mengontrol dua ibu kota Arab, yaitu Tripoli (ibu kota Libya) dan Doha (ibu kota Qatar).

Konferensi perdamaian di Westphalia, Jerman, 24 Oktober 1648.

Rusia memiliki pangkalan udara dan laut permanen di Suriah, yaitu pangkalan udara Khmeimim dan pangkalan laut Tartus. Rusia juga sudah memiliki pangkalan udara permanen di Libya, yaitu pangkalan udara Jufra.

AS pun menempatkan pasukannya secara permanen di Suriah bagian timur dan utara. Di Irak, AS punya pangkalan udara Ain Assad (Irak barat), pangkalan udara K1 di Kirkuk, dan pangkalan udara Harir di dekat Erbil.

Maka, kini muncul wacana di dunia Arab bahwa tidak ada pilihan untuk mengakhiri situasi karut-marut yang sudah akut tersebut, kecuali membangun Westphalia Arab. Nama Westphalia merujuk pada tempat digelarnya konferensi perdamaian di Westphalia, Jerman, yang melahirkan kesepakatan politik di Eropa pada 24 Oktober 1648.

Kesepakatan politik yang kemudian populer dengan sebutan rekonsiliasi Westphalia itu adalah mengakhiri perang 30 tahun (1618-1648) antara Katolik dan Protestan di Eropa. Salah satu butir dalam kesepakatan Westphalia itu menegaskan tidak diizinkannya satu kaum atau kelompok ikut campur dalam urusan kaum atau kelompok lain.

Turut campur dalam urusan keyakinan atau kepercayaan antara satu dan lain kaum atau kelompok merupakan faktor yang mengobarkan perang agama di Eropa. Rekonsiliasi Westphalia itu kemudian disepakati menjadi titik tolak lahirnya negara bangsa yang modern di Eropa, dengan kedaulatan sebuah negara dan bangsa menjadi prioritas, di atas segala-galanya.

Rekonsiliasi Wetsphalia tersebut lahir dari kandungan sejarah berdarah di Eropa yang memakan korban ribuan putra-putri benua itu. Ide lahirnya rekonsiliasi Wetsphalia itu berasal dari para pemikir dan cendekiawan Eropa saat itu yang sangat prihatin melihat situasi karut-marut Benua Eropa, saat antara satu dan lain kaum dan negara berperang.

Hugo Grotius (kiri) dan Cardinal Richelieu (kanan).

Di antara cendekiawan Eropa yang dianggap berandil melahirkan rekonsiliasi Wetsphalia adalah cendekiawan asal Belanda, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), yang dikenal sebagai bapak hukum internasional, dan cendekiawan asal Perancis, Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642).

Munculnya wacana pentingnya membangun Westphalia Arab di kalangan cendekiawan Arab saat ini didorong oleh berita positif dari kawasan Arab Teluk bahwa Arab Saudi dan Qatar semakin mendekati rekonsiliasi. Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi (KTT) Dewan Kerja Sama Teluk (GCC) di Manama, Bahrain, akhir Desember ini, diimbau menjadi titik tolak digulirkannya proyek Westphalia Arab dengan misi membangun rekonsiliasi di dunia Arab.

Dijadwalkan, rekonsiliasi Arab Saudi-Qatar akan diumumkan dalam forum KTT GCC di Manama nanti. Di antara isi rekonsiliasi Arab Saudi-Qatar itu adalah Riyadh akan kembali membuka akses wilayah udara, laut, dan darat atas Qatar. Rekonsiliasi Arab Saudi-Qatar itu dicapai berkat mediasi intensif Amerika Serikat (AS) dan Kuwait beberapa waktu terakhir.

Jared Kushner dan Donald Trump.

Penasihat politik Presiden AS Donald Trump yang sekaligus juga menantunya, Jared Kushner, pada awal Desember lalu melakukan kunjungan ke Arab Saudi dan Qatar untuk mendesak kedua negara Arab itu melakukan rekonsiliasi. Arab Saudi dan Qatar kemudian secara prinsip bersedia melakukan rekonsiliasi.

Hampir dipastikan, Bahrain akan segera mengikuti jejak Arab Saudi untuk melakukan rekonsiliasi dengan Qatar. Apalagi, KTT GCC tahun ini akan digelar di Manama, yang akan dihadiri Raja Saudi Salman Bin Abdulaziz dan Emir Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamd al-Thani.

Adapun Mesir dan Uni Emirat Arab (UEA) diharapkan menyusul mengikuti jejak Arab Saudi untuk melakukan rekonsiliasi dengan Qatar. Trump diberitakan mulai menekan Mesir agar bersedia melakukan rekonsiliasi dengan Qatar. Trump yang kalah dari Joe Biden dalam pemilihan presiden AS berharap rekonsiliasi di kawasan Arab Teluk sudah terwujud sebelum ia meninggalkan Gedung Putih pada 20 Januari 2021.

Seperti diketahui, konflik di kawasan Arab Teluk meletup bermula dari aksi kuartet Arab (Arab Saudi, Mesir, UEA, dan Bahrain) yang melancarkan blokade total terhadap Qatar pada Juni 2017. Kuartet Arab tersebut menuduh Qatar mendukung jaringan teroris di Timur Tengah. Namun, Qatar membantah keras tuduhan itu.

Para cendekiawan Arab mengingatkan, meskipun sejarah bangsa Arab didominasi oleh perpecahan dan peperangan, ada sepenggal sejarah yang meninggalkan kenangan romantisisme kemesraan bangsa Arab dalam menghadapi musuh bersama. Oleh karena itu, tidak mustahil, kebersatuan bangsa Arab bisa terwujud lagi.

Para cendekiawan Arab menyebut, kenangan romantisisme bangsa Arab adalah ketika mereka bersatu mendukung Mesir, saat Terusan Suez mendapat serangan segitiga dari Inggris, Perancis, dan Israel pada 1956. Serangan itu merupakan reaksi atas kebijakan Presiden Mesir Gamal Abdel Nasser yang melakukan nasionalisasi atas Terusan Suez pada 1956.

Saat itu, serikat pekerja di kota Aden, Yaman selatan, menolak mengisikan bahan bakar untuk kapal-kapal perang ataupun komersial Inggris yang berada di pelabuhan kota Aden sebagai solidaritas terhadap rakyat Mesir yang mendapat serangan Inggris, Perancis, dan Israel.

Demikian juga, para pekerja pelabuhan di negara-negara Arab lain yang berada di bawah pemerintah kolonial Inggris saat itu, seperti pelabuhan di Oman, Kuwait, dan Irak, juga menolak mengisikan bahan bakar untuk kapal-kapal perang Inggris yang hendak menuju Terusan Suez.

Para pekerja pelabuhan di negara-negara Arab yang berada di bawah pemerintah kolonial Perancis saat itu, seperti Tunisia, Maroko, dan Aljazair, juga menolak mengisikan bahan bakar untuk kapal perang Perancis yang hendak menuju Terusan Suez sebagai bentuk dukungan terhadap Mesir.

Presiden Mesir, Gamal Abdel Nasser (Foto: Getty Images).

Kebersatuan bangsa Arab itu juga terwujud ketika menghadapi perang Arab-Israel tahun 1967 dan 1973. Arab Saudi bisa melupakan perbedaan pendapat dengan Mesir soal perang saudara di Yaman 1962-1970, ketika memimpin embargo minyak atas negara-negara Barat karena mendukung Israel, sebagai solidaritas terhadap Mesir dan Suriah pada perang Arab-Israel tahun 1973.

Para cendekiawan Arab melihat situasi dunia Arab saat ini mirip dengan situasi Eropa pada tahun 1618-1648 yang dilanda perang berlarut-larut. Mereka terkesima melihat keberhasilan para cendekiawan Eropa melalui forum rekonsiliasi Westphalia yang telah berandil mengakhiri perang 30 tahun di Eropa dan mengantarkan lahirnya negara bangsa modern di benua itu. Maka, para cendekiawan Arab memimpikan rekonsiliasi Wetsphalia juga terwujud di dunia Arab dengan menggulirkan ide Westphalia Arab.

Musthafa Abd Rahman,
Wartawan Senior Kompas
Editor:‎ Prasetyo Eko
KOMPAS, 11 Desember 2020

Barack Obama: Satu Pidato Tak Menyelesaikan Masalah

SUARANYA lantang, tapi ramah. "Halo, halo, halo," katanya seraya memasuki ruangan. Tujuh wartawan berbagai negeri yang telah menunggu di sekeliling meja bundar di sebelah aula Universitas Kairo, Mesir, itu pun berdiri menyambut, Kamis pekan lalu.

Barack Obama baru saja selesai berpidato di aula universitas. Di depan sekitar 3.000 hadirin -sebagian besar mahasiswa- Presiden Amerika Serikat itu berbicara tentang negerinya, dunia Islam, dan mustahaknya perdamaian. Ia mengutip Al-Quran dan Taurat. Sepanjang 55 menit itu hadirin memberikan lebih dari 25 aplaus, dan dua kali teriakan "I love you!"

Ia tak tampak lelah ketika memasuki ruangan wawancara. Sambil bersalaman, para wartawan mulai bertanya. "Masih bisa berbahasa Indonesia?" wartawan Shahanaaz Habib dari koran The Star, Malaysia, menyapa. Obama menjawab dalam bahasa Indonesia yang fasih, "Sudah banyak lupa."

Wartawan Tempo, Bambang Harymurti, mengajukan empat pertanyaan, termasuk tentang rencana Obama menjenguk rumahnya di Menteng Dalam, Jakarta. Juga tentang sikapnya mengenai hubungan politik dan keyakinan agama.

Obama memang bukan penganut sekularisme murni, seperti umumnya kaum liberal di Partai Demokrat. Pengalamannya bergaul di kalangan aktivis gereja membuatnya melihat peran para pastor gereja kalangan berkulit hitam (black churches), yang biasanya juga aktivis sosial, bahkan politik.

Mengenakan setelan jas hitam dan dasi biru, Presiden Obama duduk di kursi dan memulai acara dengan santai, tapi serius. "Kita kabarnya hanya punya waktu 30 menit, dan saya baru berpidato," katanya. "Jadi, sebaiknya kita mulai saja acara ini secara bergiliran." Ia segera menunjuk Wafa Amr, wartawan perempuan koran Al Quds di Palestina.

Pertanyaan demi pertanyaan meluncur, dan Presiden Obama menjawabnya dengan penuh percaya diri. Agaknya, pengalamannya sebagai pengajar membuatnya campin menjelaskan masalah pelik dengan segar, karena selalu dilampiri senda gurau.

Tak terasa 50 menit berlalu, dan wawancara harus dihentikan. "Saya sekarang ingin melihat piramida," katanya. Namun para wartawan rupanya tak ingin melepaskan Obama begitu saja. Acara foto bersama dan minta tanda tangan pun sempat berlangsung sebelum presiden yang ramah itu meninggalkan ruangan.

Berikut ini wawancara Presiden Obama dengan Tempo dan enam wartawan dari Palestina, Mesir, Israel, Malaysia, Libanon, dan Arab Saudi.

Kapan Anda berkunjung ke Indonesia?
O... saya perlu berkunjung ke Indonesia segera. Saya perkirakan pada tahun depan. Saya akan surprised kalau dalam perjalanan ke Asia nanti saya mampir ke kampung halaman lama saya, Jakarta. Pergi ke Menteng Dalam, makan bakso dan nasi goreng... (tertawa).

Saya tinggal hanya 300-an meter dari rumah Anda di Menteng Dalam....
Is that right? Tapi saya dengar sekarang jalannya sudah diaspal, ya? Dulu, sewaktu saya tinggal di sana, jalannya masih tanah, sehingga kalau turun hujan jadi lumpur dan mobil-mobil terjebak.

Apakah Anda akan datang November nanti, ketika ada pertemuan Kerja Sama Ekonomi Asia Pasifik (APEC)?
Jangan tanya saya soal detail... (tertawa).

Dalam buku The Audacity of Hope, Anda menulis soal pengalaman Anda terlibat dalam kegiatan gereja kaum kulit hitam. Apakah Anda merasa banyak kesamaan pandangan di kalangan aktivis gereja kulit hitam itu tentang hubungan agama dan politik dengan pandangan para aktivis politik Islam?
Sebagai seorang penganut Nasrani yang juga pendukung kuat demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia, dan dosen ilmu konstitusi, saya punya pandangan tentang bagaimana masyarakat pluralistik hidup bersama. Ini adalah soal yang telah banyak saya pikirkan. Apa yang saya coba komunikasikan dalam pidato saya adalah apa yang amat saya yakini, bahwa di dunia yang interdependen seperti sekarang ini, tempat berbagai keyakinan yang berbeda harus hidup bersama, kita membutuhkan keyakinan yang dewasa, yaitu yang mengatakan: saya sangat meyakini keyakinan saya, tapi saya menghormati kenyataan bahwa orang lain juga dapat amat meyakini keyakinannya yang berbeda. Jadi, jalan satu-satunya kita dapat hidup bersama adalah jika kita menyepakati satu sistem politik yang menghasilkan aturan tentang bagaimana hubungan bersama dilakukan, yaitu saya tak bisa memaksakan ketentuan agama saya berlaku pada orang lain, bahwa saya tak bisa memobilisasi pihak mayoritas untuk mendiskriminasi kalangan minoritas. Saya tak bisa mengambil aturan dalam agama saya dan menerapkannya kepada penganut agama lain.

Itu bukan berarti saya tak dapat melontarkan argumen berdasarkan keyakinan saya. Misalnya, sebagai penganut Nasrani, saya percaya perintah Tuhan tentang tak boleh membunuh, dan sebagai politikus saya mengupayakan undang-undang yang melarang orang membunuh. Ini bukan berarti saya memaksakan keyakinan agama saya, melainkan memperjuangkan nilai moral yang mungkin diterima juga oleh pihak-pihak lain karena bersifat universal. Saya kira amat penting bagi umat Islam untuk merenungkan soal ini. Misalnya tentang syariah. Saya sadar tak semua agama punya pandangan yang sama tentang perannya dalam politik, tentang bagian mana dalam ajarannya yang layak diterapkan pada hukum sekuler. Tapi, kalau ada yang memaksakan ajarannya harus dijalankan oleh penganut agama atau kelompok lain, ini jelas bertentangan dengan semangat demokrasi dan lama-lama akan menyebabkan terjadinya instabilitas, bahkan perilaku destruktif di masyarakat. Ini adalah hal penting yang perlu diperdebatkan secara internal di kalangan penganut Islam.

Satu hal yang saya yakini, bila ada yang merasa dibenarkan oleh agamanya untuk membunuh orang lain, pasti ia telah keliru memahami ajaran agamanya. Saya kira ini adalah persoalan yang perdebatannya sudah selesai bagi kebanyakan orang, tapi masih ada kelompok amat kecil yang berpotensi destruktif.

Mengapa memilih Kairo untuk melontarkan pidato ini?
Saya pikir penting melakukannya di Kairo, karena sumber masalah utama hubungan Islam dan Amerika Serikat belakangan ini berada di kawasan Timur Tengah. Ini memang nyaris terkesan mencederai Indonesia, karena bukan hanya saya pribadi yang mengenal dekat budayanya. Adik tiri saya kelahiran Indonesia. Tapi, terus terang, hubungan Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia umumnya baik. Memang sempat melemah beberapa saat setelah perang Irak, tapi boleh dikatakan secara umum komunikasi kami baik. Kecenderungan saya adalah menghadapi masalah di sumbernya, bukan dengan menghindar. Dan dalam situasi sekarang ini, saya kira, sumber masalah dengan Amerika Serikat adalah dengan negara-negara di Timur Tengah.

Sebenarnya pidato Anda ditujukan kepada siapa? Kelompok ekstrem tampaknya tak menggubris.
Terutama kalangan muda dunia Islam. Kalau ada anak muda Islam, mungkin berusia 20 tahun, yang tersentuh ajakan saya, lalu memulai sebuah percakapan dengan teman sebaya atau orang tuanya, itu berarti pidato saya tak sia-sia. Mudah-mudahan perbincangan itu membuat mereka tak mudah direkrut kelompok ekstrem. Kelompok ekstrem memang bukan khalayak sasaran pidato saya.

Tidakkah ekspektasi terhadap Anda terlalu tinggi?
Saya sudah berusaha menjelaskan bahwa hanya satu pidato tak akan menyelesaikan masalah. Yang hendak saya lakukan adalah memulai sebuah perbincangan, bukan hanya antara saya dan masyarakat Islam, tapi di antara komunitas Islam sendiri, di antara masyarakat Amerika, juga di antara masyarakat Barat, yaitu bagaimana membicarakan masalah ini dengan jujur. Apa diagnosis terhadap problem yang ada? Mungkin perlu waktu lama untuk melakukan diagnosis, tapi tak mungkin melakukan penyembuhan tanpa diagnosis yang tepat. Saya tak berpikir beberapa masalah ini akan dapat diselesaikan dalam waktu singkat.

Apa perbedaan pendekatan pemerintahan Anda dibanding sebelumnya dalam upaya menyelesaikan masalah Palestina?
Saya kira terlalu prematur menjawabnya sekarang. Saya baru menyampaikan satu pidato tentang hal-hal prinsip saja, belum masuk ke pelaksanaannya. Perdana Menteri Netanyahu baru menjabat dua bulan, dan Presiden Mahmud Abbas, yang saya temui dua pekan lalu, sedang melakukan konsultasi dengan para pemimpin Arab. Masih harus didiskusikan sejauh mana kesediaan masing-masing pihak mencari penyelesaian. Ini adalah masalah sulit, dan tak boleh dianggap remeh. Apalagi masing-masing pihak memiliki persoalan politik yang juga pelik. Konflik ini sudah berjalan 60 tahun, tak mungkin diselesaikan dalam waktu singkat.

Adakah kerangka waktu dalam menyelesaikan kasus ini?
Saya tak mau memaksakan jadwal. Saya kira dapat dirasakan kapan perundingan mengalami kebuntuan dan kapan bergerak. Saat ini kebuntuan sudah terjadi untuk waktu cukup lama, maka perlu digerakkan kembali.

Bagaimana sikap Anda terhadap Hamas?
Telah saya sebutkan dalam pidato saya tadi bahwa tak dapat dimungkiri Hamas mempunyai dukungan di sebagian warga Palestina. Juga saya katakan, Hamas harus mulai memikul tanggung jawab jika ingin menjalankan pemerintahan. Hamas harus sadar, tak mungkin menjalankan pemerintahan tanpa mengakui eksistensi negara tetangganya, Israel. Menghilangkan Israel adalah sebuah ilusi. Kini Hamas harus memutuskan apakah hanya tertarik berbicara atau menghasilkan karya nyata. Jika memang serius, Hamas harus keluar dari jalan kekerasan dan mengakui hak hidup Israel. Jika ini dilakukan, masih banyak hal lain yang dapat dinegosiasikan. Maka pilihan sebenarnya berada di tangan Hamas.

Mungkinkah pemerintahan Anda menekan Perdana Menteri Netanyahu, mengingat kuatnya lobi Israel di Kongres Amerika Serikat?
Pertama, saya telah menjelaskan bahwa hubungan Amerika Serikat dan Israel amat kuat, tak mungkin putus, partai apa pun yang berkuasa di Kongres. Hubungan ini amat dalam, karena faktor budaya dan sejarah. Jadi jangan harap hubungan ini akan putus. Tentang Perdana Menteri Netanyahu, dia baru saja menyusun pemerintahan koalisi yang tak mudah, dan baru dua bulan menjabat. Saat ini, banyak warga Israel kehilangan kepercayaan terhadap proses negosiasi. Saya percaya Perdana Menteri Netanyahu akan menghidupkan kembali kepercayaan ini. Ingat kunjungan Nixon yang terkenal ke Cina? Karena Nixon dari Partai Republik yang dikenal antikomunis, ia dapat melakukannya. Hal ini susah dilakukan seorang presiden dari Partai Demokrat. Saya percaya Netanyahu dapat memainkan peran seperti yang dilakukan Nixon dulu. Paling tidak, berilah kesempatan beberapa bulan lagi sebelum menyatakan penyelesaian kasus Palestina pasti gagal.

Bagaimana sebenarnya sikap Anda tentang Iran?
Saya sudah menjelaskan soal ini di masa lalu, dan tetap konsisten. Adalah kepentingan Iran juga untuk mencegah terjadinya perlombaan memiliki nuklir di kawasan ini. Pendekatan saya adalah, mari membicarakan hal ini dan mencari solusi bersama. Tapi saya juga sadar tentang batasan waktu, tentang pentingnya masalah ini diselesaikan segera. Saya cenderung melakukan pendekatan diplomasi dalam menyelesaikan masalah, tapi tentu saya tak akan melakukan pembicaraan sekadar untuk bicara saja. Jika saya tak melihat ada kemajuan, tentu opsi lain dipertimbangkan demi menjaga kepentingan kami.

TEMPO Interaktif, 8 Juni 2009

Seruan Simpatik Via Kairo

Pidato Presiden Amerika Serikat Barack Hussein Obama di Kairo sebenarnya hanyalah penegasan kembali keinginannya untuk meletakkan hubungan baik dengan dunia Islam sebagai prioritas pemerintahnya. Dalam pidato itu, dia menyerukan dimulainya babak baru di antara kedua pihak. Inilah pidato yang wujud nyatanya pasti akan terus ditagih umat Islam.

Selama 55 menit, Obama berbicara begitu jelas dan jernih. Nadanya simpatik. Dia mengakui adanya "tahun-tahun ketidakpercayaan" serta "siklus kecurigaan dan perselisihan" antara Amerika dan dunia Islam. Tapi, seraya memastikan bahwa Amerika akan terus memerangi terorisme dan melanjutkan persekutuan dengan Israel, dia meminta kedua pihak melakukan "usaha berkelanjutan untuk saling menghormati dan mencari pengertian bersama".

Pidato itu memang ditunggu-tunggu dengan antusiasme meluap. Ekspektasi tentang apa yang hendak dikatakan Obama kali ini terasa begitu tinggi. Walau begitu, harus diakui tantangan yang dihadapinya luar biasa besar. Dia harus menepis lebih dulu kekeliruan dan prasangka buruk terhadap Amerika yang berakar dalam di banyak bagian dunia Islam.

Dan Obama mengambil kesempatan untuk melakukan koreksi itu secara memikat. Dia, antara lain, kembali menegaskan bahwa Amerika tidak berperang dengan Islam, karena Islam juga menjadi bagian dari Amerika. Menurut dia, Amerika akan terus berusaha menjalin kerja sama yang luas berdasarkan kepentingan bersama dan saling menghormati. Tapi apakah dia berhasil meyakinkan audiensnya -semiliar lebih muslim di seluruh dunia- bahwa Amerika kali ini tulus? Dia butuh lebih dari sekadar kata-kata.

Mula-mula harus diakui bahwa ada yang melihat pernyataan itu mengandung masalah. Alasannya, Obama berbicara tentang Islam sebagai satu entitas. Karena ada kalangan yang meyakini Islam bukan semata sebagai agama, tapi juga sebagai gerakan politik, sudut pandang Obama itu dinilai justru bisa memperkuat ilusi bahwa Islam merupakan satu kesatuan dan tak bisa dibagi-bagi. Ilusi inilah yang dianggap ikut menjadi dasar radikalisme dan aksi kekerasan atas nama Islam.

Namun, bahkan andaikata kemajemukan Islam bisa diabaikan, dunia Islam pasti masih ingat betapa George W. Bush pun berulang kali mengatakan hal yang sama seperti Obama sejak tragedi 11 September 2001. Selama dua periode pemerintahnya, hubungan Amerika dengan dunia Islam toh terus memburuk. Masalahnya, kebijakannyalah yang sebenarnya menjadi ukuran. Tindakan Bush hampir selalu bertentangan dengan kata-katanya. Kini giliran Obama untuk melakukan perbaikan.

Tapi rintangan yang ia hadapi jauh lebih terjal. Sebab, kebijakan Amerika bagai raksasa gendut yang lamban dan malas bergerak, sementara kepentingan Amerika tak pernah berganti, siapa pun presidennya. Yang diperlukan Obama adalah tekad kuat dan daya kepemimpinan yang berlipat-lipat.

Di titik ini ada keraguan. Beberapa langkah dan sikap Obama sendiri menjadi penyebabnya. Dalam soal Irak, misalnya, dia memang meminta penarikan pasukan Amerika. Tapi, untuk Afganistan, dia malah mengirimkan tambahan pasukan. Dia juga diam saja ketika Israel membombardir Jalur Gaza -apa pun alasannya. Dalam pidatonya di Mesir, dia tetap menyokong keputusan Bush bahwa pejabat Amerika dilarang berhubungan dengan Hamas sampai kelompok sosial-politik Palestina itu memenuhi syarat-syarat yang diajukan Amerika, Uni Eropa, Rusia, dan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa.

Sebelum daftar negatif itu menjadi panjang, Obama harus segera mewujudkan kata-katanya. Ia mesti mulai berinisiatif mencari cara mengkompromikan kebijakan luar negeri Amerika dan visinya tentang perdamaian Amerika dengan Islam. Dalam hal ini, kredibilitas personalnya saja tak akan bisa diandalkan, apalagi "saldo"-nya bisa menciut sewaktu-waktu.

TEMPO Interaktif, 7 Juni 2009

President Barack Hussein Obama's speech at Cairo University

Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.

I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu ‘alaykum.

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.

More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.

All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on 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.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.

As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.

That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.

As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...

It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,

The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.

They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...

Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.

We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.
We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.

But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt...

... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.

When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.

That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.

Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all 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.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida 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 Qaida 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. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind. And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.

That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.

We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.

We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.

Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.

Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years, they've endured the pain of dislocation.

Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.

So let there be no doubt, the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.

For decades, then, there has been a stalemate. Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers.

For Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history, from within its borders as well as beyond.

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth. The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interests, Palestine's interests, America's interests and the world's interests. And that's why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all of the patience and dedication that the task requires.

The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them and all of us to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.

This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia, to Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed, that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern with institutions that serve the needs of its people.

Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities, to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security, neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.

Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace. And Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And, finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibility. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.

We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state.

It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true. Too many tears have been shed, too much blood has been shed.

All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians could, can see their children grow up without fear, when the holy land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be, when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed — peace be upon them — joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons. This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself, in part, by its opposition to my country. And there is, in fact, a tumultuous history between us.

In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known.

Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against but, rather, what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discussion between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.

But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests.

It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.

Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.

Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.

This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.

The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.

That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.

We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.

Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.

Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.

Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.

That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.

Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.

In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.

Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...

And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.

At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.

Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.

Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.

The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.

The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.