Global Perspectives on the "Af/Pak" War
Saturday February 11th 2012

Critical Notes on Obama’s Cairo Speech: Imperialism with a Human Face

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 discuss 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.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation 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. (Applause.) 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’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

This is potentially a very positive statement, provided that Israel — why wasn’t it mentioned by name, while Iran was singled out — India, Pakistan, and the United States, are included in what is intended.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reader Feedback

2 Responses to “Critical Notes on Obama’s Cairo Speech: Imperialism with a Human Face”

  1. [...] On 14 February 1945, when King Saud met with US President Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy in Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal, Roosevelt asked for the Arab King’s advice and suggestions on what could be done for European Jewry. King Saud had replied: “Give them and their descendants the choicest lands and homes of the Germans who had oppressed them.” When pressed further by Roosevelt, King Saud replied: “Make the enemy and the oppressor pay; that is how we Arabs wage war. Amends should be made by the criminal, not by the innocent bystander. What injury have Arabs done to the Jews of Europe? It is the ‘Christian’ Germans who stole their homes and lives. Let the Germans pay.” This has been the Muslim view, ever since. In the end, Roosevelt promised Ibn Saud that “the U. S. Government would make no change in its basic policy in Palestine without full and prior consultation with both Jews and Arabs.” In the event, US President Truman unilaterally reneged on Roosevelt’s promise to Ibn Saud with the explanation, “I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” [Source: here.] [...]

  2. [...] Critical Notes on Obama’s Cairo Speech: Imperialism with a Human Face | 7 June 2009 [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.