President Obama Calls for Middle East Reform

Play
Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

The Arab Spring has put pressure on President Obama to articulate a coherent policy response. But he has been addressing each country on a case-by-case basis. Obama has been weighing the benefits of reform against the strategic costs of alienating key rulers.

Obama made it clear he was with the protestors in Tunisia and Egypt . In Libya he went to war on their behalf. But not in Syria, and the picture has been more complicated in Bahrain and Yemen. In this speech Thursday, Obama laid out some core principles that guide US policy.

“The US opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region,” Obama said. “The United States supports a set of universal rights and these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law. And the right to choose your own leaders, whether you live in Baghdad, or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.”

Obama announced an economic aid initiative for the region starting with Egypt and Tunisia. He singled out those countries because Egypt is a longstanding ally and Tunisia was in the vanguard of the democratic wave. By contrast, Obama condemned Syria for choosing what he called the path of murder and mass arrest.

“The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests,” said Obama. “It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests it must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Daraa. And start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.”

Obama said Syrian President Bashar al Assad, has a choice: Lead the transition or get out of the way. He compared Syria’s crackdown on protestors to that of Iran on the protestors of the Green Revolution two years ago.

But Obama also acknowledged that it’s not just America’s foes who are cracking down – it’s also friends like Yemen and Bahrain. And he said that friend and foe a like need to understand that they must take the risks that reform entails to have the full support of the United States.

Finally Obama called on the Israelis and Palestinians to continue to try to forge a peace which he argues is now more urgent than ever. And he encouraged Americans to see their own history in the upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Our nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire,” said Obama. “Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union.”

Obama’s speech had many audiences Thursday and he tried to reach them all without causing too much offense. But his broad appeal for peaceful reform doesn’t change the tough strategic questions that litter the road ahead.
Video of the entire speech and analysis
The President’s Speech on Twitter
Text of the Speech



Discussion

3 comments for “President Obama Calls for Middle East Reform”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Imani-Burrell/100002259534084 Imani Burrell

    This speech was unbelievable.  It sounds like Mr. Obama is finally reflecting the will of his people.  We are concerned with more than just our internal challenges, ie. jobs, healthcare, budgets.   We are also hyper-aware that there are other people who don’t have even our most basic freedoms.  I think Mr. Obama worded this speech perfectly.  We, these United States of America, support all efforts of our brothers and sisters accross the world to stand up and declare their rights of freedom.  It was especially poignant and meaningful to me when Mr. Obama said that these revolutions will evolve under the people of the countries involved, on their time line, and with the very real potential for violent attempts to establish new governments.  I couldn’t be prouder of our president.  He showed the world what the American people have felt for a very long time.  And Hilary looked amazing!  And spoke beautifully!

  • Anonymous

     
    This
    article is a response to an article by NY Post’s Amir Taheri: “The New Map of
    the Arab World.” I underscore the fact that the Obama Administration should be
    given no credit for recent developments in the Arab world, while making the case
    that much credit is due to the Bush Administration.

     

    Who does
    deserve the credit for the Arab Spring?  Not the Obama
    Administration.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_new_map_of_the_arab_world_UjmHMH0fZ0LywL0JhFkrdN

     

    I will agree with Mr. Taheri’s assertion that the Obama
    Administration should receive no credit for the Arab Spring, but he overlooks
    giving credit to the Administration deserving
    of much of the credit for creating the conditions
    which allowed the “Arab Spring
    movements” to develop.

     

    Mr. Taheri’s first group consists of those are countries that
    have toppled their despots and are on the way to democratization: most
    importantly Iraq. It seems that the US will not declare the obvious: we won the
    Iraq War. We have unseated a despotic regime, subdued a rabid insurgency, and
    established the most democratic government that the Arab world has ever known.
    The Left here and abroad is silent in the face of these achievements. The Left
    declared constantly that these results were impossible, they are wrong. Please
    just recall the comments of members the current Administration and the
    Democratic Party leadership in Congress during
    the long struggle. I wonder just how much respect the current democratically
    elected leaders of Iraq have for anyone in this Administration all of whom were
    working so hard against the successful conclusion of the Iraq War.

     

    Mr. Taheri’s second group consists of the petro-monarchies. Yes
    that’s right, monarchies in the twenty-first century. It has been the continuing
    US policy to support those petro-monarchies, so while including the current
    Administration, it does not shoulder the blame alone. However, the fact that the
    President would consult the King of Jordan about the “Arab Spring” is
    deliciously ironic. It should be US policy to strengthen democratic civil
    society movements in all nations, because it is not merely morally the correct
    thing to do, but because in the end the people in these nations will take
    control. (Does Anyone Remember Blowback: Do we want these new governments, when
    they finally take power to look at the US as helping or hindering their
    struggle?)

     

    Mr. Taheri’s third group consists of rejectionist despotic
    regimes. In Libya the Obama Administration is half-heartily encouraging the
    rebels. It is bizarre to watch the chokingly constrained military support that
    the Obama Administration provides the rebels. Indeed the rebels were nearly
    crushed until the slight loosing of constraints on military intervention. It is
    extremely ironic to have the Ero-poodles (with their hollowed out militaries)
    sounding more bellicose than the US. Meanwhile in Syria the thug-ocracy of Assad
    family has murdered well over 1,000 of its own civilians with no end in sight.
    The Obama Administration’s Syrian engagement policy seems to be an unmitigated failure as well as morally
    bankrupt.

     

    Mr. Taheri’s fourth group consists of near failed states.
    Sudan is finally ending its civil war of more than 30 years with devolution into
    a Muslim northern rump-state and a non-Muslim southern rump-state. Eritrea is
    struggling to hold itself together since breaking away from Ethiopia. Mauritania
    struggles with a corrupt and ineffective government with a largely uneducated
    poor population. The
    only thing supporting these countries appears to be the resource demands of the
    Chinese government, which has no interest in democracy but an increasing
    appetite for natural resources. To expect more than naked self-interest from the
    Chinese government, a self-perpetuating, unaccountable, communist gerontocracy,
    is folly.   

     

    I do take issue with his assertion that: “These dramatic
    changes in the Arab world have happened without much input by any other major
    power — including the United States.” Does he really believe that had Sadam
    remained in power that he would be writing about “The New Map of the Arab
    World?”

     

    The overthrow of Sadam’s government and victory in the Iraq
    War has finally unstuck the despotic ossification of the Arab world. The ripple
    effects of these developments have allowed the Arab Spring movements to flower.
    The people in the Arab world look to the democratically elected government of
    Iraq as a model of a much more democratic future. A democratic Iraq is something
    that never would have existed had the Democrats, who run the current
    Administration, achieved their preferred outcome during the Iraq War. President
    Obama’s Cairo speech was delivered some two years ago. Words, Mr. President, did
    not cause the Arab Spring. Facts on the ground were the midwife of these
    movements. So I close with this thought: The Arab Spring movement owes more to
    George Bush and the successful conclusion of the Iraq War than to the words and
    half-hearted actions of the Obama Administration.

     

    Kevin Frei

    Houston, TX

  • Anonymous

     
    This
    article is a response to an article by NY Post’s Amir Taheri: “The New Map of
    the Arab World.” I underscore the fact that the Obama Administration should be
    given no credit for recent developments in the Arab world, while making the case
    that much credit is due to the Bush Administration.

     

    Who does
    deserve the credit for the Arab Spring?  Not the Obama
    Administration.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_new_map_of_the_arab_world_UjmHMH0fZ0LywL0JhFkrdN

     

    I will agree with Mr. Taheri’s assertion that the Obama
    Administration should receive no credit for the Arab Spring, but he overlooks
    giving credit to the Administration deserving
    of much of the credit for creating the conditions
    which allowed the “Arab Spring
    movements” to develop.

     

    Mr. Taheri’s first group consists of those are countries that
    have toppled their despots and are on the way to democratization: most
    importantly Iraq. It seems that the US will not declare the obvious: we won the
    Iraq War. We have unseated a despotic regime, subdued a rabid insurgency, and
    established the most democratic government that the Arab world has ever known.
    The Left here and abroad is silent in the face of these achievements. The Left
    declared constantly that these results were impossible, they are wrong. Please
    just recall the comments of members the current Administration and the
    Democratic Party leadership in Congress during
    the long struggle. I wonder just how much respect the current democratically
    elected leaders of Iraq have for anyone in this Administration all of whom were
    working so hard against the successful conclusion of the Iraq War.

     

    Mr. Taheri’s second group consists of the petro-monarchies. Yes
    that’s right, monarchies in the twenty-first century. It has been the continuing
    US policy to support those petro-monarchies, so while including the current
    Administration, it does not shoulder the blame alone. However, the fact that the
    President would consult the King of Jordan about the “Arab Spring” is
    deliciously ironic. It should be US policy to strengthen democratic civil
    society movements in all nations, because it is not merely morally the correct
    thing to do, but because in the end the people in these nations will take
    control. (Does Anyone Remember Blowback: Do we want these new governments, when
    they finally take power to look at the US as helping or hindering their
    struggle?)

     

    Mr. Taheri’s third group consists of rejectionist despotic
    regimes. In Libya the Obama Administration is half-heartily encouraging the
    rebels. It is bizarre to watch the chokingly constrained military support that
    the Obama Administration provides the rebels. Indeed the rebels were nearly
    crushed until the slight loosing of constraints on military intervention. It is
    extremely ironic to have the Ero-poodles (with their hollowed out militaries)
    sounding more bellicose than the US. Meanwhile in Syria the thug-ocracy of Assad
    family has murdered well over 1,000 of its own civilians with no end in sight.
    The Obama Administration’s Syrian engagement policy seems to be an unmitigated failure as well as morally
    bankrupt.

     

    Mr. Taheri’s fourth group consists of near failed states.
    Sudan is finally ending its civil war of more than 30 years with devolution into
    a Muslim northern rump-state and a non-Muslim southern rump-state. Eritrea is
    struggling to hold itself together since breaking away from Ethiopia. Mauritania
    struggles with a corrupt and ineffective government with a largely uneducated
    poor population. The
    only thing supporting these countries appears to be the resource demands of the
    Chinese government, which has no interest in democracy but an increasing
    appetite for natural resources. To expect more than naked self-interest from the
    Chinese government, a self-perpetuating, unaccountable, communist gerontocracy,
    is folly.   

     

    I do take issue with his assertion that: “These dramatic
    changes in the Arab world have happened without much input by any other major
    power — including the United States.” Does he really believe that had Sadam
    remained in power that he would be writing about “The New Map of the Arab
    World?”

     

    The overthrow of Sadam’s government and victory in the Iraq
    War has finally unstuck the despotic ossification of the Arab world. The ripple
    effects of these developments have allowed the Arab Spring movements to flower.
    The people in the Arab world look to the democratically elected government of
    Iraq as a model of a much more democratic future. A democratic Iraq is something
    that never would have existed had the Democrats, who run the current
    Administration, achieved their preferred outcome during the Iraq War. President
    Obama’s Cairo speech was delivered some two years ago. Words, Mr. President, did
    not cause the Arab Spring. Facts on the ground were the midwife of these
    movements. So I close with this thought: The Arab Spring movement owes more to
    George Bush and the successful conclusion of the Iraq War than to the words and
    half-hearted actions of the Obama Administration.

     

    Kevin Frei

    Houston, TX