Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

I haven't watched a video of it, but the text of President Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament sure reads like a home run to me. He offered the gracious words of praise that any guest offers his hosts, but he also managed to be eloquent on matters of great sensitivity and to convey a healthy respect for his listeners. A few highlights, and maybe a bit a tea-leaf reading:

1. Obama began by noting that Turkey was "part of Europe," and later said it "is not where East and West divide -- it is where they come together." And he made it unequivocally clear that the United States supports Turkey's entry into the EU. French President Nicolas Sarkozy wasn’t pleased, but I’ll bet Obama’s audience was.

2. As he did in his famous speech on race during the campaign, Obama used his and our own experiences in order to address the delicate issue of Turkish-Armenian history. In the race speech, he invoked the example of his white grandmother to appeal to white Americans who were struggling in their own way with the implications of our troubled racial history. And he managed to do that in a way that conveyed his deep affection for her despite her human lapses. In this speech, he spoke of America's own "darker periods," and reminded his Turkish audience that "human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past." He deftly turned attention away from his earlier comments about the Armenian genocide (and did not use that word), by noting that "this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past." By referring to America’s own treatment of blacks and native Americans, and to our shameful reliance upon torture under President Bush, he avoided the self-congratulatory hubris that appeals to American audiences but usually puts foreign audiences’ teeth on edge.

3. He thanked Turkey for its diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, and once again stated that the United States "strongly supports" the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace. His language treated the two sides equally, and he again committed himself to "actively pursuing" that goal.

4. Obama also went to some lengths to engage the Muslim world in a broad and expansive manner that looked to the future instead of dwelling on the past. He acknowledged that there have been strains in recent years and made it clear that the United States was still committed to combating terrorism. Yet he emphasized that "America's relationship with the Muslims cannot and will not be based on opposition to Al Qaeda." I'm sure that played better than "you're either with us, or with the terrorists."

5. Finally, I was struck by the language he used when addressing Iran’s nuclear program. He said that “the peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions” (my emphasis), adding that "Iran's leaders must choose whether they will build a weapon or build a better future for their people." Was this a subtle hint that the United States might be willing to tolerate Iranian enrichment, provided that we are confident that it was not masking a covert weapons program? Hmmmmm.

All in all, I thought it was a terrific speech. But my opinion hardly matters: the real question is what his audience thought. I’ll be very interested to see what they have to say about it.   

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

HASS

1:02 AM ET

April 7, 2009

Not much change from Bush administration

The Bush administration conflated a nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program in Iran too. Not much has changed. Enrichment is perfectly legal. In addition to Iran, Brazil and Argentina have started enriching uranium, and more will follow because the developing world doesn't trust the US and Russia as their sole source of nuclear fuel. And that's what this conflict is REALLY about -- not nuclear weapons, but the attempt by some countries to monopolize nuclear fuel production under the guise of fighting nuclear weapons proliferation.

 

HASS

1:06 AM ET

April 7, 2009

Obama follow Bush line on Iran nuclear program

"In the absence of any actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons programme is being smoothed over through the use of ambiguities. This is usually done by conflating a nuclear-weapons programme with a nuclear-energy programme. ... For example, in addition to overt references to a weapons programme, there may be references to Iran's nuclear "threat", or vague statements about Iran's nuclear "ambitions", or even more tenuously, allusions to Iran's "intentions" to obtain a nuclear-weapons "capability"."

SOURCE: Rhetoric of War: First Iraq, then Iran?
By Cyrus Safdari
Global Dialogue, Volume 8, No. 1-2, Winter-Spring 2006
http://www.geocities.com/csafdari/

 

GRAND SEN-OR

6:24 AM ET

April 7, 2009

You got it Mate!

All in all, I thought it was a terrific speech. But my opinion hardly matters: the real question is what his audience thought. I’ll be very interested to see what they have to say about it.

Here, that is what I would say;->

It looks like Obama is in Turkey to talk about the virtues of secularo-fascist State to save his State. Obviously, he still doesn't realize that when you deny SPEEs' right to law this pushes them to underground to pursue their survival instinct playing transparent as the State does with her mono-laws. Through this process, SPEEs themselves metamorphose to another secularo-fascist structure to gain control of the State. That is what happened in Iran and that is what is happening in the US via the IL and similar transparent structures. And similar process is happening in Turkey via Ergenekon (so called deep-state) a structure belongs to the IL family of structures.

Of course, I wasn't expecting from Obama to deliver any message to undermine State or express the reality as Patriot Freeman did. Obama never promised any change on the Constitution. In fact, he sweared to save it and that is what he is doing. As far as I observe, he delivered nothing to Muslims.

He couldn't say:
"Muslims have the right to law as much as Secularists!".

What he said in its place is:
"It is good to be secularist even for Muslims, isn't it? Look at me! I have Muslims in my family and I am black but all that didn't stop me to become the President of the US, did it? Viva Secularism!".

Like he would advice a Jew(?!) say Allen Green:
"It is great to be secularist as a Jew, isn't it My Dear Allen?! It brings you closer and closer to own the Monopoly - the State. If you be patient and live long enough even yo may get it one day!".
Of course, he wouldn't dare to add:
"Allen! If you don't believe me, ask your Rabbi Mate!"
as I usually do;->>

What a farce;->>

Professor! please ignore this message, as if I've never posted it on your Blog, I know it is too realistic even for your realist Blog, but again I couldn't hold my fingers Mate!;->>
Please don't show this to Obama or Erdogan, it is key-punched for your realistic eyes only;->>

Grand Sen~or.

 

KEN

11:40 AM ET

April 8, 2009

"unequivocally clear" Ideological aggression

For someone who thinks there is a danger of thirties style nationalst mass movements in Europe you are startlingly insouciant about the effect of admitting Turkey. The Poles came in numbers an order of magnitude greater than had been predicted and Turkey is a far larger, poorer and younger country. Unemployment?

Maybe you are taking on board how unlikely any such nationalist activism is " Britain is home to more pensioners than children for the first time in the country's history. There are 11.58 million pensioners - classed as men over 65 and women over 60 - compared with 11.52 million under-16s"

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More