Obama throws the weight of the west behind freedom in the Middle East

The president redefines the role of the US and its allies with a stirring speech to both houses of parliament in Westminster Hall Barack Obama has put America and Europe unambiguously on the side of those fighting for freedom across the Middle East, saying the west can remain “the catalysts for global action”, ending a decade of war, terrorism and terrible recession. “The time for our leadership is now,” he asserted, challenging the notion that the west was in inexorable decline. In the centrepiece of a day of extraordinary theatre and pomp, Obama, the first American president to address both houses of parliament in Westminster Hall, sought to redefine the role of the US and its allies. He developed his foreign policy doctrine by arguing that the Arab spring showed the west need no longer fear that its interests and ideals were in conflict. Accepting the west had to overcome mistrust in the region, he said western leaders had come to recognise “repression only offers the false promises of stability, that societies are more successful when their citizens are free and that democracies are the closest allies we have”. But he sought to distance himself from George W Bush’s military simplicities in Iraq, insisting: “We will proceed with humility and the knowledge that we cannot dictate outcomes abroad. Ultimately freedom must be won by people themselves.” Obama’s speech came hours after a joint news conference with David Cameron in which they renewed their calls for Muammar Gaddafi to stand aside. But there were differences in tone, with Cameron saying they should be “turning up the heat” on the Libyan leader, while Obama called for patience and cautioned against artificial timelines. In addition, the US president did not explicitly call for regime change, saying “at minimum” the requirement was “to make sure Gaddafi does not have the capacity to send in a bunch of thugs to murder innocent civilians”. He also sought to dispel as a false perception the suggestion that the US military restraint was preventing a quick fix in Libya, denying that “there are a whole bunch of secret super-effective air assets in a warehouse somewhere that could just be pulled out and that would immediately solve the situation in Libya”. But in the more lofty context of his speech in Westminster Hall, Obama portrayed Libya as a test case of the west’s responsibility to stand up for universal rights. He said: “It would have been easy to argue that nation’s sovereignty is more important than the slaughter of citizens within its borders. “While we cannot stop every injustice, there are circumstances that cut through our caution – when a leader is threatening to massacre his people and the international community is calling for action. That is why we stopped a massacre in Libya. And we will not relent until the people of Libya are protected, and the shadow of tyranny is lifted.” From the beaches of Normandy to the Balkans and to Benghazi, he found a linear path through history, arguing that Britain and America had consistently rejected the notion that “people in certain parts of the world don’t want to be free or need to have democracy imposed on them”. But he warned that the struggle in the Middle East might be long, saying it would be years before these revolutions reached their conclusions. Paraphrasing the abolitionist Frederick Douglass, he reminded his audience: “Power rarely gives up without a fight, particularly in places where there are divisions of tribe and sect. We also know that populism can take dangerous turns – from the extremism of those who would use democracy to deny minority rights, to the nationalism that left so many scars on this continent in the 20th century.” Obama tempered some of his idealism by admitting that America had a strategic self-interest in the Middle East. “We must squarely acknowledge that we have enduring interests in the region: to fight terror with partners who may not always be perfect, and to protect against disruptions in the world’s energy supply.” The speech to 500 parliamentarians – including Cameron and three former prime ministers, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Major – reached its climax when the US president argued that both Britain and America, unusually, defined their nationhood “not through race or ethnicity, but by a belief in the rights of individuals and the rule of law”. Despite the tensions caused by waves of immigration, he said: “The example of our two nations says it is possible for people to be united by their ideals, instead of divided by their differences.” In Obama’s most optimistic passage, and the only one that drew applause in the stately surroundings, he argued that both nations believed “it is possible for hearts to change and old hatreds to pass, that it is possible for the sons and daughters of former colonies to sit here as members of this great parliament, and for the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British army to stand before you as president of the United States”. Away from the speechmaking, Cameron and Obama met for 90 minutes in Downing Street first alone and then alongside the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and the chancellor, George Osborne. The talks centred on Afghanistan, North Africa, Israel and the world economy. The prime minister will have been delighted with the pictures of the two men sharing table tennis and a barbecue, and Obama’s assertion that he had come to trust Cameron’s’s judgment through two dozen phone calls. He will have been disappointed, though, that the president did not take up the chance to endorse the coalition’s speedy and deep deficit reduction strategy. Instead he emphasised the differences between the two countries, saying: “Obviously the nature and role of the public sector in the United Kingdom is different than it has been in the United States. The pressures that each country are under from world capital markets are different, the nature of the debt and deficits are different and, as a consequence, the sequencing or pace may end up being different.” But Cameron sought to emphasise the similarities, saying: “When I look across now and see what the US and the UK are contemplating for the future, it is a relatively similar programme in terms of trying to get on top of our deficit and make sure that debt is falling as a share of GDP.” Obama also made clear that he did not think the UN should prematurely recognise Palestine as an independent state. He said: “The United Nations can achieve a lot of useful work but what the UN is not going to be able to do is to deliver a Palestinian state, so I strongly believe that for the Palestinians to take a UN route rather than sitting down and talking with Israel is a mistake.” He also seemed to tack to the Israelis, following his speech calling for a settlement based on 1967 borders, by arguing that it would be difficult currently for Israel to talk to the Palestinians. He said: “Hamas has not renounced violence. Hamas is an organisation that has thus far rejected the recognition of Israel as a legitimate state. It is very difficult for Israelis to sit across the table and negotiate with a party that is denying your right to exist, and has not renounced the right to send missiles and rockets into your territory.” Barack Obama Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Posted by on May 25, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.