Sweden will assume the EU's six-month rotating presidency on 1 July, amid great economic challenges and institutional uncertainty for the 27-nation bloc.
If ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is completed this year it could be the last six-month presidency.
What are Sweden's priorities as it takes over from the Czech Republic?
ECONOMIC CRISIS
Sweden is taking over the reins of an EU reeling from the impact of the economic crisis - the worst since the 1930s. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt says the EU must continue with its recovery plan, shoring up banks with liquidity and guarantees, so as to get credit flowing again.
High unemployment is an EU-wide problem, so Sweden is anxious to lay the foundations for a new growth and employment strategy, to replace the EU's Lisbon Agenda. That agenda, adopted in March 2000, aimed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world" by 2010.
EU leaders have agreed on a framework for improved financial supervision, and Sweden hopes to get the corresponding EU legislation passed during its presidency. The plan is to install new EU supervisory bodies to identify systemic risks and to monitor individual financial firms, to prevent another meltdown.
Sweden also has the job of defending the EU's single market against protectionist pressures fuelled by the economic crisis.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The EU has set strict targets for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but Sweden says it will work to get similar commitments from other industrial powers ahead of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December.
Mr Reinfeldt has said "everyone talks about the importance of reducing emissions and yet global greenhouse gas emissions have not even started to decline". But he welcomes the "encouraging signals from the new US administration".
A major Swedish goal is to get EU agreement on measures to help developing countries convert to renewable energy and reduce their emissions.
The Copenhagen conference is intended to map out a new global climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
LISBON TREATY
Institutional uncertainty overshadows the Swedish presidency, because the Lisbon Treaty has not yet been ratified by all member states. Much depends on the Republic of Ireland's second referendum, expected in October. A win for the "Yes" camp would give the treaty a good chance of coming into effect this year.
Under Lisbon, the six-monthly rotating EU presidency would be replaced by one that runs for two-and-a-half years, there would be a powerful new foreign affairs chief and the European Parliament would gain wider powers.
The treaty would give the parliament a bigger say over the appointment of the new European Commission and would boost the number of Euro MPs from 736 to 754.
BALTIC SEA CO-OPERATION
Sweden says it wants joint EU efforts to tackle pollution in the Baltic Sea and to revive economic activity in the region, which has been hit hard by the financial crisis.
"The objective is to adopt an EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea which will contribute to a cleaner sea and make the region more economically dynamic," the Swedish government says.
IMMIGRATION
Sweden plans to promote a common asylum policy "characterised by legal certainty and transparency".
It wants to boost EU co-operation on migration through a "Stockholm Programme," covering border controls, visa policy, asylum and law enforcement.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Iran at a turning point
By Roula Khalaf, Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Anna Fifield
They are outraged and they are desperate for change. But look at the faces of many of Iran’s protesters, and they appear cheerful. Despite the deaths of the past week, the arrests and the beatings, they have kept a smile on their faces as they raise their hands in a victory sign.
As the crisis over the disputed presidential election result has unfolded – posing the biggest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979 and taking the world by storm – hopes for a move towards a more reformist, tolerant Islamic regime have rested on the hundreds of thousands who have taken to the streets. Many of them are young and ambitious for their country, demanding above all that they be respected.
In a country not known for displays of happiness – it was a novelty in the late 1990s to have a president (the reformist Mohammad Khatami) who smiled – the outcome of the election eight days ago, which declared hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad the winner, is seen as one affront too many by those who voted for Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the reformist candidate. “They took us for fools,” is a common refrain.
For a youthful, educated population, it appears a wall of fear has been shattered, releasing them from years of bottled-up frustration. Mohsen Rezaei, a conservative candidate in the presidential election, has spoken of a “phenomenon” in this election. “People valued their votes so much as if it was their honour,” he says.
No one doubts the crisis is a turning point. The country, says Gary Sick, an expert on Iran from Columbia University, has entered “an entirely new phase of its post-revolution history”. The one characteristic that has always distinguished it from other authoritarian regimes of the Middle East, he says, “was its respect for the voice of the people, even when that voice was saying things that much of the leadership did not want to hear”.
But the shift will be tumultuous. The regime has no intention of giving in to demands for a new vote and no appetite for compromise. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader, made clear in an address on Friday that the election result would not be altered and protests would not be tolerated.
“Even if this fire is extinguished, the government will lack a popular base and people will obstruct its policies,” warns one political activist in the country.
The real size of Mr Moussavi’s support is impossible to gauge, and the president retains popularity – particularly among religious radicals, the poor and the rural population, whom he has assiduously courted with his populist policies. But the divisions in society so starkly illustrated this week will not go away, and they have been mirrored within the regime itself.
Mr Moussavi is no secular politician. He was an active participant in the 1979 revolution. His candidacy had attracted backing from Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the powerful former president, and other conservatives, including segments of the clerical establishment. Strongly behind him, too, was the reformist camp, which believes that in order for the revolution to survive, its system – part theocracy and part democracy – must re-engage with society, giving it wider freedom and accountability.
Some commentators have described the election as a palace coup, engineered by the hardline wing of the regime, represented by the military establishment that backs Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, and supported by the supreme leader, who is the ultimate authority in the country. The aim, say these commentators, was to destroy the reform movement and either control and manage any opening up to the US, now that President Barack Obama is seeking engagement with Iran, or thwart it altogether.
The passionate protests, and their style, have conjured up images of 1979, but their outcome need not be the same. The silent, solemn marches; the cries of Allahu Akbar (“God is Great”) from rooftops at night, used in 1979 to notify the authorities that no one is above God and symbolically reminding today’s regime of that time; and the lashing out of the authorities – all remind Iranians of the revolution. The organisation of rallies, too, has gone back to the primitive ways of the revolution, amid unprecedented restrictions on high-technology media such as Twitter, the social networking service. “We’ve been sending motorcycles to the streets to tell people about the rallies, we have to transfer information face to face,” says one person involved in the protests.
But whether the crisis will provoke a larger protest movement that shakes the power structure more deeply, or a total consolidation of power by hardliners, as Mr Khamenei hinted on Friday , is difficult to judge.
Just as there are similarities with the revolution, there are also stark differences – not least that the western world is cheering not for the shah but for the demonstrators.
As the political activist who took part in the revolution says, it was led by a charismatic religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had an extraordinary ability to mobilise segments of a fractured society while in exile. He was relentless in both method and ambition for an overthrow of the shah. “But now there is no leader,” says the activist, “and Moussavi wants to lead protests peacefully.”
. . .
Mr Moussavi, out of the political establishment since he served as prime minister in the 1980s, has been surprisingly bold in his statements in the past week. So far he has appeared to be led by the street, which has mobilised for protests even when he issues a statement postponing a rally. At least some support, moreover, is less for him than against Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, seen by large parts of the educated middle class as having destroyed both the foundation of the economy, provoking rampant inflation, and its image abroad.
The main target of protesters this week has been Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who has a popular support base and is not, in any case, the real decision-maker in the country. Although few doubt that the authority of the supreme leader remains solid, some analysts say that even he may not be in full control of his troops, not least the powerful Revolutionary Guard. Clearly taken by surprise by the intensity of the unrest, which spread to other parts of the country, the regime has been scrambling for ways to damp the protests, lashing out with arrests, beatings and attacks.
During much of the day Tehran has looked normal, with residents going about their daily business. But it has been gripped by rally fever in late afternoons. Most evenings, particularly in the north of the city, home to the elite who turn out in force, the tensions have been at their highest.
Plain-clothes Basiji, members of the feared Islamic militia, holding shields, and wielding batons, deploy in the streets, sometimes setting up checkpoints. Their task seems to have been to chase and punish protesters as they dispersed from rallies and return home. The government says eight people have died in the past week; Amnesty International puts the death toll at 15.
The regime has been working hard to ensure that the rallies will peter out, as fear of violence and retribution spread. Friday’s speech by the supreme leader, warning people to stop their protests and portraying any domestic unrest as playing into the hands of the enemy, was the most dramatic move to silence the streets.
Analysts and diplomats, however, say that, unlike the unrest of 1999, the last serious crisis in Iran that involved a student uprising, tougher repression today carries a much higher cost, as it would have to target so many segments of the population, all of which have relatives in the security forces.
The stance of Mr Moussavi, torn between his supporters’ demands and the consequences of widespread repression, will be crucial.
“Will Moussavi end up standing with the regime and deciding to end this, or will he follow his troops and stay with them? Will he become more radical and challenge the regime even more?” asks a western diplomat.
The fear in Tehran is that the regime’s actions will turn the peaceful demonstrators, now still focused on a demand for a rerun of the vote and reform of the system, into a more radicalised opposition that wants an end to the Islamic system itself. With society divided, part of it deeply wounded by the election, and the regime under strain, the country could face a prolonged period of unrest. The dispute over the election could bode ill for western governments hoping to curb the fast-progressing nuclear programme, and at least delay US intentions to engage.
“With his speech, the leader has put himself against the people,” says one young Iranian who has participated in daily protests. “The regime does not understand that this wave is driven by people, not by politicians.”
“The regime has taken a big hit,” notes the western diplomat. “But the hardliners also think any concession would be the beginning of their end.”
They are outraged and they are desperate for change. But look at the faces of many of Iran’s protesters, and they appear cheerful. Despite the deaths of the past week, the arrests and the beatings, they have kept a smile on their faces as they raise their hands in a victory sign.
As the crisis over the disputed presidential election result has unfolded – posing the biggest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979 and taking the world by storm – hopes for a move towards a more reformist, tolerant Islamic regime have rested on the hundreds of thousands who have taken to the streets. Many of them are young and ambitious for their country, demanding above all that they be respected.
In a country not known for displays of happiness – it was a novelty in the late 1990s to have a president (the reformist Mohammad Khatami) who smiled – the outcome of the election eight days ago, which declared hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad the winner, is seen as one affront too many by those who voted for Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the reformist candidate. “They took us for fools,” is a common refrain.
For a youthful, educated population, it appears a wall of fear has been shattered, releasing them from years of bottled-up frustration. Mohsen Rezaei, a conservative candidate in the presidential election, has spoken of a “phenomenon” in this election. “People valued their votes so much as if it was their honour,” he says.
No one doubts the crisis is a turning point. The country, says Gary Sick, an expert on Iran from Columbia University, has entered “an entirely new phase of its post-revolution history”. The one characteristic that has always distinguished it from other authoritarian regimes of the Middle East, he says, “was its respect for the voice of the people, even when that voice was saying things that much of the leadership did not want to hear”.
But the shift will be tumultuous. The regime has no intention of giving in to demands for a new vote and no appetite for compromise. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader, made clear in an address on Friday that the election result would not be altered and protests would not be tolerated.
“Even if this fire is extinguished, the government will lack a popular base and people will obstruct its policies,” warns one political activist in the country.
The real size of Mr Moussavi’s support is impossible to gauge, and the president retains popularity – particularly among religious radicals, the poor and the rural population, whom he has assiduously courted with his populist policies. But the divisions in society so starkly illustrated this week will not go away, and they have been mirrored within the regime itself.
Mr Moussavi is no secular politician. He was an active participant in the 1979 revolution. His candidacy had attracted backing from Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the powerful former president, and other conservatives, including segments of the clerical establishment. Strongly behind him, too, was the reformist camp, which believes that in order for the revolution to survive, its system – part theocracy and part democracy – must re-engage with society, giving it wider freedom and accountability.
Some commentators have described the election as a palace coup, engineered by the hardline wing of the regime, represented by the military establishment that backs Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, and supported by the supreme leader, who is the ultimate authority in the country. The aim, say these commentators, was to destroy the reform movement and either control and manage any opening up to the US, now that President Barack Obama is seeking engagement with Iran, or thwart it altogether.
The passionate protests, and their style, have conjured up images of 1979, but their outcome need not be the same. The silent, solemn marches; the cries of Allahu Akbar (“God is Great”) from rooftops at night, used in 1979 to notify the authorities that no one is above God and symbolically reminding today’s regime of that time; and the lashing out of the authorities – all remind Iranians of the revolution. The organisation of rallies, too, has gone back to the primitive ways of the revolution, amid unprecedented restrictions on high-technology media such as Twitter, the social networking service. “We’ve been sending motorcycles to the streets to tell people about the rallies, we have to transfer information face to face,” says one person involved in the protests.
But whether the crisis will provoke a larger protest movement that shakes the power structure more deeply, or a total consolidation of power by hardliners, as Mr Khamenei hinted on Friday , is difficult to judge.
Just as there are similarities with the revolution, there are also stark differences – not least that the western world is cheering not for the shah but for the demonstrators.
As the political activist who took part in the revolution says, it was led by a charismatic religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had an extraordinary ability to mobilise segments of a fractured society while in exile. He was relentless in both method and ambition for an overthrow of the shah. “But now there is no leader,” says the activist, “and Moussavi wants to lead protests peacefully.”
. . .
Mr Moussavi, out of the political establishment since he served as prime minister in the 1980s, has been surprisingly bold in his statements in the past week. So far he has appeared to be led by the street, which has mobilised for protests even when he issues a statement postponing a rally. At least some support, moreover, is less for him than against Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, seen by large parts of the educated middle class as having destroyed both the foundation of the economy, provoking rampant inflation, and its image abroad.
The main target of protesters this week has been Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who has a popular support base and is not, in any case, the real decision-maker in the country. Although few doubt that the authority of the supreme leader remains solid, some analysts say that even he may not be in full control of his troops, not least the powerful Revolutionary Guard. Clearly taken by surprise by the intensity of the unrest, which spread to other parts of the country, the regime has been scrambling for ways to damp the protests, lashing out with arrests, beatings and attacks.
During much of the day Tehran has looked normal, with residents going about their daily business. But it has been gripped by rally fever in late afternoons. Most evenings, particularly in the north of the city, home to the elite who turn out in force, the tensions have been at their highest.
Plain-clothes Basiji, members of the feared Islamic militia, holding shields, and wielding batons, deploy in the streets, sometimes setting up checkpoints. Their task seems to have been to chase and punish protesters as they dispersed from rallies and return home. The government says eight people have died in the past week; Amnesty International puts the death toll at 15.
The regime has been working hard to ensure that the rallies will peter out, as fear of violence and retribution spread. Friday’s speech by the supreme leader, warning people to stop their protests and portraying any domestic unrest as playing into the hands of the enemy, was the most dramatic move to silence the streets.
Analysts and diplomats, however, say that, unlike the unrest of 1999, the last serious crisis in Iran that involved a student uprising, tougher repression today carries a much higher cost, as it would have to target so many segments of the population, all of which have relatives in the security forces.
The stance of Mr Moussavi, torn between his supporters’ demands and the consequences of widespread repression, will be crucial.
“Will Moussavi end up standing with the regime and deciding to end this, or will he follow his troops and stay with them? Will he become more radical and challenge the regime even more?” asks a western diplomat.
The fear in Tehran is that the regime’s actions will turn the peaceful demonstrators, now still focused on a demand for a rerun of the vote and reform of the system, into a more radicalised opposition that wants an end to the Islamic system itself. With society divided, part of it deeply wounded by the election, and the regime under strain, the country could face a prolonged period of unrest. The dispute over the election could bode ill for western governments hoping to curb the fast-progressing nuclear programme, and at least delay US intentions to engage.
“With his speech, the leader has put himself against the people,” says one young Iranian who has participated in daily protests. “The regime does not understand that this wave is driven by people, not by politicians.”
“The regime has taken a big hit,” notes the western diplomat. “But the hardliners also think any concession would be the beginning of their end.”
Iran’s Children of Tomorrow
By ROGER COHEN
TEHRAN — They are known mockingly as the “Joojeh Basiji” — the “chicken Basiji.” These are the militia scarcely old enough to manage more than a feeble beard. Teenagers, brainwashed from early childhood, they have been ferried into the capital in large numbers, given a club and a shield and a helmet and told to go to work.
I saw them throughout downtown Tehran on Sunday, seated in the back of grey pick-ups. I saw them, sporting sleeveless camouflage vests, in clusters on corners, leaning on trees, even lolling shoeless on the grass in the central island of Revolution Square.
They were far from alone in a city in military lockdown. Elite riot police with thigh-length black leg guards, helmeted Revolutionary Guards in green uniforms and rifle-touting snipers composed a panoply of menace. The message to protesters was clear: Gather at your peril.
That threat had already been rammed home Saturday evening, when a student named Neda Agha Soltan was killed by a single shot. Her last moments were captured on video that has gone global. Martyrdom is a powerful force in the world of Shia Islam. Mourning on the 3rd and 7th and 40th days after a death form a galvanizing cycle.
Neda is already another name for the anger smoldering here, whose expression, in my experience, has been bravest, deepest and most vivid among women. She could become Iran’s Marianne.
Tehran, cradled in its mountainous amphitheater, is holding its breath. Sunday was quiet and Monday dawned quiet but between them the defiant cries of “Death to the dictator” and “Allah-u-Akbar” reverberated between high-rises once again.
In this pregnant lull, I keep hearing three questions: Will Mir Hussein Moussavi lead? How powerful are the internal divisions of the revolutionary establishment? And what is the ultimate goal of the uprising? On the answer to them will hinge the outcome of this latest fervid expression of Iran’s centennial quest for pluralistic freedom.
After the shootings Saturday that took several lives, Moussavi seemed absent. The bespectacled revolutionary leader thrust now into defiance was silent. People risking their lives craved guidance. Disappointed in 1999 and 2003 by the legalistic kowtowing of the reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami, they feared resignation redux.
Then, early Monday, Moussavi spoke. “Protesting to lies and fraud is your right,” he said, referring to the preposterous manipulation of the June 12 election and laying down the gauntlet again to the once sacrosanct pronouncements of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader invested by the Islamic Revolution with an authority close to the Prophet’s. Last Friday, Khamenei said: “I want everyone to end this sort of action.”
Khamenei also said, “Trust in the Islamic Republic became evident in these elections.”
In fact I believe the loss of trust by millions of Iranians who’d been prepared to tolerate a system they disliked, provided they had a small margin of freedom, constitutes the core political earthquake in Iran. Moderates who once worked the angles are now muttering about making Molotov cocktails and screaming their lungs out after dusk.
Moussavi is trying to calm their rage and coax the multiple security forces to his side. Restraint was the core appeal of his Monday statement. He urged his followers to avoid violence and adopt parental forbearance before the “misbehavior” of security forces — an appropriate reference given all the teenage thugs out there.
I think Moussavi is right to avoid extreme positions even as Khamenei has deliberately radicalized the conflict. He’s right because his moderation fans internal divisions that seem rampant. Any counterrevolutionary stance, at least at this point, would have the opposite effect.
Which brings me to the fight within. On Sunday, I saw Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani, the son of the establishment’s embittered éminence grise, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He told me his father, who despises President Mahmoud Adhmadinejad, is fighting a furious rearguard action to have the election annulled by the Guardian Council, the 12-member oversight body that will pronounce this week on the election’s legality.
The ruling had seemed a formality, given Khamenei’s summary dismissal of a recount and the loyalist composition of the body, but the Council is now talking about irregularities in 50 cities and discrepancies that could affect 3 million votes. Out of a total of 40 million votes, that’s a significant number.
There are rumblings from the influential parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, who is close to Khamenei but not Ahmadinejad. With Rafsanjani, Khatami and the defeated conservative former Revolutionary Guard leader, Mohsen Rezai, the dissenting front has breadth. Rezai, who officially won 680,000 votes, says more than 900,000 voters have written to him with their ID numbers saying they cast their ballot for him.
The third question — the strategic goal of the uprising — is increasingly fraught. Khamenei said, “The dispute is not between the revolution and the counterrevolution,” and that all four electoral candidates “belong to the system.” He was right, if his words had been spoken the day after the vote.
Ten days on, however, the brutal use of force and his own polarizing speech have drawn many more Iranians toward an absolutist stance. Having wanted their votes counted, they now want wholesale change. If Moussavi wants to prevail, he must keep his followers tactically focused on securing a new election. That’s essential because it’s the one position the opposition within the clerical establishment will go along with.
Whatever happens now, all is changed utterly in Iran. Opacity, a force of the Islamic Republic, has yielded to a riveting transparency in which one side confronts another. The online youth of Iran will not be reconciled to a regime that touts global “ethics” and “justice” while trampling on them at home.
I received this from an anonymous Iranian student: “I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to be killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow!”
And she concludes: “I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so that they know we were not just emotional under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mogols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children.”
I bow my head to the youth of Iran, the youth that is open-eyed, bold and far stronger and more numerous than the near-beardless vigilantes.
TEHRAN — They are known mockingly as the “Joojeh Basiji” — the “chicken Basiji.” These are the militia scarcely old enough to manage more than a feeble beard. Teenagers, brainwashed from early childhood, they have been ferried into the capital in large numbers, given a club and a shield and a helmet and told to go to work.
I saw them throughout downtown Tehran on Sunday, seated in the back of grey pick-ups. I saw them, sporting sleeveless camouflage vests, in clusters on corners, leaning on trees, even lolling shoeless on the grass in the central island of Revolution Square.
They were far from alone in a city in military lockdown. Elite riot police with thigh-length black leg guards, helmeted Revolutionary Guards in green uniforms and rifle-touting snipers composed a panoply of menace. The message to protesters was clear: Gather at your peril.
That threat had already been rammed home Saturday evening, when a student named Neda Agha Soltan was killed by a single shot. Her last moments were captured on video that has gone global. Martyrdom is a powerful force in the world of Shia Islam. Mourning on the 3rd and 7th and 40th days after a death form a galvanizing cycle.
Neda is already another name for the anger smoldering here, whose expression, in my experience, has been bravest, deepest and most vivid among women. She could become Iran’s Marianne.
Tehran, cradled in its mountainous amphitheater, is holding its breath. Sunday was quiet and Monday dawned quiet but between them the defiant cries of “Death to the dictator” and “Allah-u-Akbar” reverberated between high-rises once again.
In this pregnant lull, I keep hearing three questions: Will Mir Hussein Moussavi lead? How powerful are the internal divisions of the revolutionary establishment? And what is the ultimate goal of the uprising? On the answer to them will hinge the outcome of this latest fervid expression of Iran’s centennial quest for pluralistic freedom.
After the shootings Saturday that took several lives, Moussavi seemed absent. The bespectacled revolutionary leader thrust now into defiance was silent. People risking their lives craved guidance. Disappointed in 1999 and 2003 by the legalistic kowtowing of the reformist former president, Mohammad Khatami, they feared resignation redux.
Then, early Monday, Moussavi spoke. “Protesting to lies and fraud is your right,” he said, referring to the preposterous manipulation of the June 12 election and laying down the gauntlet again to the once sacrosanct pronouncements of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader invested by the Islamic Revolution with an authority close to the Prophet’s. Last Friday, Khamenei said: “I want everyone to end this sort of action.”
Khamenei also said, “Trust in the Islamic Republic became evident in these elections.”
In fact I believe the loss of trust by millions of Iranians who’d been prepared to tolerate a system they disliked, provided they had a small margin of freedom, constitutes the core political earthquake in Iran. Moderates who once worked the angles are now muttering about making Molotov cocktails and screaming their lungs out after dusk.
Moussavi is trying to calm their rage and coax the multiple security forces to his side. Restraint was the core appeal of his Monday statement. He urged his followers to avoid violence and adopt parental forbearance before the “misbehavior” of security forces — an appropriate reference given all the teenage thugs out there.
I think Moussavi is right to avoid extreme positions even as Khamenei has deliberately radicalized the conflict. He’s right because his moderation fans internal divisions that seem rampant. Any counterrevolutionary stance, at least at this point, would have the opposite effect.
Which brings me to the fight within. On Sunday, I saw Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani, the son of the establishment’s embittered éminence grise, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He told me his father, who despises President Mahmoud Adhmadinejad, is fighting a furious rearguard action to have the election annulled by the Guardian Council, the 12-member oversight body that will pronounce this week on the election’s legality.
The ruling had seemed a formality, given Khamenei’s summary dismissal of a recount and the loyalist composition of the body, but the Council is now talking about irregularities in 50 cities and discrepancies that could affect 3 million votes. Out of a total of 40 million votes, that’s a significant number.
There are rumblings from the influential parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, who is close to Khamenei but not Ahmadinejad. With Rafsanjani, Khatami and the defeated conservative former Revolutionary Guard leader, Mohsen Rezai, the dissenting front has breadth. Rezai, who officially won 680,000 votes, says more than 900,000 voters have written to him with their ID numbers saying they cast their ballot for him.
The third question — the strategic goal of the uprising — is increasingly fraught. Khamenei said, “The dispute is not between the revolution and the counterrevolution,” and that all four electoral candidates “belong to the system.” He was right, if his words had been spoken the day after the vote.
Ten days on, however, the brutal use of force and his own polarizing speech have drawn many more Iranians toward an absolutist stance. Having wanted their votes counted, they now want wholesale change. If Moussavi wants to prevail, he must keep his followers tactically focused on securing a new election. That’s essential because it’s the one position the opposition within the clerical establishment will go along with.
Whatever happens now, all is changed utterly in Iran. Opacity, a force of the Islamic Republic, has yielded to a riveting transparency in which one side confronts another. The online youth of Iran will not be reconciled to a regime that touts global “ethics” and “justice” while trampling on them at home.
I received this from an anonymous Iranian student: “I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to be killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow!”
And she concludes: “I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so that they know we were not just emotional under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mogols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children.”
I bow my head to the youth of Iran, the youth that is open-eyed, bold and far stronger and more numerous than the near-beardless vigilantes.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Foreign relations: Ankara builds a role as regional peacemaker
By Daniel Dombey
Ahmet Davutoglu paints a picture of the world with Turkey at its centre.
Recently appointed foreign minister – he was previously a close adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister – Mr Davutoglu lists several of the planet’s most important disputes and proceeds to explain why his country is key to solving them.
In the Middle East, Turkey maintains good relationships with a range of countries – including Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia – and last year Mr Davutoglu spearheaded efforts to foster a Syrian-Israeli peace deal.
Turkish soldiers serve in Afghanistan and the country has hosted trilateral meetings with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If President Barack Obama is to withdraw US forces in Iraq, as he has promised, his military will use its base in Incirlik, Turkey, to do so. And when the discussion turns to the financial crisis, Turkey is at the table, as a member of the G20.
“North Korea was the one thing with which we were not involved,” Mr Davutoglu told journalists in Washington. “But now as the United Nations Security Council president [for the month of June] we have to deal with that as well.”
That global role makes Turkey all the more important a partner of the US, he adds, and he is quick to argue that the new US president has reached the same conclusion.
He stresses Mr Obama visited Ankara and Istanbul little more than two months into his presidency – “it shows how the new US administration perceives Turkey’s significance” – and remarks that some Turks were so taken with Mr Obama’s election last November that they sacrificed sheep in celebration.
But most of all, Mr Davutoglu dwells on Mr Obama’s suggestion, in a press conference with Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, that the two countries could form a “model partnership”.
Mr Obama spoke of how Turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation, and the US, a predominantly Christian nation, both of which have secular constitutional frameworks, “can create a modern international community that is… respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage.”
Many of Mr Obama’s advisers, including Richard Holbrooke, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, James Jones, national security adviser, and George Mitchell, Middle East envoy, have also identified Turkey as an important country in achieving their respective goals.
But none of that means that Turkish-US relations, much less Turkish relations with the rest of the world, are untroubled or have always flowed smoothly. The presidency of George W. Bush and in particular the Iraq war and the failed attempt by the US to use Turkey to send troops into that country, have left their mark. According to Pew Research, the proportion of Turks with a favourable image of the US fell from 52 per cent in 1999-2000 to 9 per cent in 2007, before a slight uptick to 12 per cent in 2008.
Nor was the success of Mr Obama’s own visit to Turkey a sure thing. Before his arrival there were jitters in Ankara about whether he would follow a campaign pledge and identify the massacre of up to 1.5m Armenians from 1915 on as genocide.
Turkey, which denies that the deaths were any such thing, has long warned that relations would suffer if the term were used by a US president or Congress. In the event, Mr Obama said his views had not changed – without saying the word.
“There’s a floor below which US-Turkish relations do not go for various reasons and there is a ceiling beyond which they cannot go,” says Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey Project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington thinktank. “At the moment we are closer to the top than the bottom. But could we say the relationship is as firm as it was during the Cold War when there was a common enemy? I would say no, because this is an era of uncertainties.”
Moreover, the goal that Mr Davutoglu identifies as Turkey’s “main strategic objective” – membership of the European Union – appears considerably more remote than it did several years ago, with the leaders of France, Germany and Austria set against it.
US influence reaches much less into Turkey than the EU did in its heyday, as at root Washington views Ankara as a strategic partner with influence in the Middle East and beyond, while the fundamental concern of the EU accession process is domestic reform that can make a country ready for membership.
Mr Aliriza adds that the reason for Mr Obama’s stance on the genocide issue – Turkey’s effort to improve relations with Armenia – is less copper-bottomed than the arguments made by past presidents, who cited national security as the rationale for avoiding the term. If the Armenian talks should falter, the issue may recur.
Even now, a US Congressional resolution denouncing genocide is backed by 125 members of the House of Representatives, but may not come to a vote. Mr Davutoglu, sounding a less sanguine note, says such a resolution would be “very destructive”.
Ahmet Davutoglu paints a picture of the world with Turkey at its centre.
Recently appointed foreign minister – he was previously a close adviser to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister – Mr Davutoglu lists several of the planet’s most important disputes and proceeds to explain why his country is key to solving them.
In the Middle East, Turkey maintains good relationships with a range of countries – including Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia – and last year Mr Davutoglu spearheaded efforts to foster a Syrian-Israeli peace deal.
Turkish soldiers serve in Afghanistan and the country has hosted trilateral meetings with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If President Barack Obama is to withdraw US forces in Iraq, as he has promised, his military will use its base in Incirlik, Turkey, to do so. And when the discussion turns to the financial crisis, Turkey is at the table, as a member of the G20.
“North Korea was the one thing with which we were not involved,” Mr Davutoglu told journalists in Washington. “But now as the United Nations Security Council president [for the month of June] we have to deal with that as well.”
That global role makes Turkey all the more important a partner of the US, he adds, and he is quick to argue that the new US president has reached the same conclusion.
He stresses Mr Obama visited Ankara and Istanbul little more than two months into his presidency – “it shows how the new US administration perceives Turkey’s significance” – and remarks that some Turks were so taken with Mr Obama’s election last November that they sacrificed sheep in celebration.
But most of all, Mr Davutoglu dwells on Mr Obama’s suggestion, in a press conference with Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president, that the two countries could form a “model partnership”.
Mr Obama spoke of how Turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation, and the US, a predominantly Christian nation, both of which have secular constitutional frameworks, “can create a modern international community that is… respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage.”
Many of Mr Obama’s advisers, including Richard Holbrooke, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, James Jones, national security adviser, and George Mitchell, Middle East envoy, have also identified Turkey as an important country in achieving their respective goals.
But none of that means that Turkish-US relations, much less Turkish relations with the rest of the world, are untroubled or have always flowed smoothly. The presidency of George W. Bush and in particular the Iraq war and the failed attempt by the US to use Turkey to send troops into that country, have left their mark. According to Pew Research, the proportion of Turks with a favourable image of the US fell from 52 per cent in 1999-2000 to 9 per cent in 2007, before a slight uptick to 12 per cent in 2008.
Nor was the success of Mr Obama’s own visit to Turkey a sure thing. Before his arrival there were jitters in Ankara about whether he would follow a campaign pledge and identify the massacre of up to 1.5m Armenians from 1915 on as genocide.
Turkey, which denies that the deaths were any such thing, has long warned that relations would suffer if the term were used by a US president or Congress. In the event, Mr Obama said his views had not changed – without saying the word.
“There’s a floor below which US-Turkish relations do not go for various reasons and there is a ceiling beyond which they cannot go,” says Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey Project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington thinktank. “At the moment we are closer to the top than the bottom. But could we say the relationship is as firm as it was during the Cold War when there was a common enemy? I would say no, because this is an era of uncertainties.”
Moreover, the goal that Mr Davutoglu identifies as Turkey’s “main strategic objective” – membership of the European Union – appears considerably more remote than it did several years ago, with the leaders of France, Germany and Austria set against it.
US influence reaches much less into Turkey than the EU did in its heyday, as at root Washington views Ankara as a strategic partner with influence in the Middle East and beyond, while the fundamental concern of the EU accession process is domestic reform that can make a country ready for membership.
Mr Aliriza adds that the reason for Mr Obama’s stance on the genocide issue – Turkey’s effort to improve relations with Armenia – is less copper-bottomed than the arguments made by past presidents, who cited national security as the rationale for avoiding the term. If the Armenian talks should falter, the issue may recur.
Even now, a US Congressional resolution denouncing genocide is backed by 125 members of the House of Representatives, but may not come to a vote. Mr Davutoglu, sounding a less sanguine note, says such a resolution would be “very destructive”.
Far right exploits rising insecurity
By Vincent Boland in Milan, Michael Steen and Thomas Escritt
The far right made gains in the elections to the European parliament, with voters in Italy, the UK, Hungary and the Netherlands, among others, supporting candidates who espoused explicitly anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic and hardline nationalist platforms.
Italy’s Northern League, stridently anti-foreigner, more than doubled its share of the vote to 10.2 per cent and won eight seats. In Hungary, the Jobbik party, with its anti-gypsy platform, won three seats. In the Netherlands, the Freedom party of Geert Wilders, the maverick politician who has become the face of anti-Islamic sentiment across Europe, won four seats.
In the UK, the anti-Islamic British National party (BNP) won its first two European parliamentary seats amid widespread disaffection with the ruling Labour party among white voters in the depressed industrial north.
Analysts said there was a pattern to the rise of the far right: it was able to exploit what seems to be a rising sense of insecurity and hostility to immigrants. Writing in Corriere della Sera, the political commentator Massimo Franco said the rise in support for the Northern League “legitimises a politics that is shared by xenophobic forces that are on the rise nearly everywhere, especially in Holland and Austria”.
High on most far-right parties’ to-do lists, however, is keeping Turkey out of the EU. Roberto Cota, a senior Northern League official, said the party would be working “above all to block illegal immigration and the entry of Turkey into the Union”.
The challenge for these parties now, analysts said, was to form a coherent grouping in the European parliament, given the unpredictable nature of many of their MEPs. Mr Wilders will not take up a seat himself, and he said his MEPs would co-operate “if other parties have good proposals”, though the party is likely to want to maintain some distance from other far right parties.
Jobbik intends to set up a new political bloc in co-operation with the BNP.
The BNP confirmed this move, and said it was also exploring tie-ups with Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front Nationale in France, Austria’s Freedom Party and Vlaams Belang of Flanders. The party would also approach the Dutch Freedom Party, a spokesman said, though agreeing on a leader for the bloc could prove difficult.
Jobbik has ruled out co-operation with the Greater Romania Party, which won three seats, or the Slovak National party, which won a seat, because both are fiercely anti-Hungarian.
The far right made gains in the elections to the European parliament, with voters in Italy, the UK, Hungary and the Netherlands, among others, supporting candidates who espoused explicitly anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic and hardline nationalist platforms.
Italy’s Northern League, stridently anti-foreigner, more than doubled its share of the vote to 10.2 per cent and won eight seats. In Hungary, the Jobbik party, with its anti-gypsy platform, won three seats. In the Netherlands, the Freedom party of Geert Wilders, the maverick politician who has become the face of anti-Islamic sentiment across Europe, won four seats.
In the UK, the anti-Islamic British National party (BNP) won its first two European parliamentary seats amid widespread disaffection with the ruling Labour party among white voters in the depressed industrial north.
Analysts said there was a pattern to the rise of the far right: it was able to exploit what seems to be a rising sense of insecurity and hostility to immigrants. Writing in Corriere della Sera, the political commentator Massimo Franco said the rise in support for the Northern League “legitimises a politics that is shared by xenophobic forces that are on the rise nearly everywhere, especially in Holland and Austria”.
High on most far-right parties’ to-do lists, however, is keeping Turkey out of the EU. Roberto Cota, a senior Northern League official, said the party would be working “above all to block illegal immigration and the entry of Turkey into the Union”.
The challenge for these parties now, analysts said, was to form a coherent grouping in the European parliament, given the unpredictable nature of many of their MEPs. Mr Wilders will not take up a seat himself, and he said his MEPs would co-operate “if other parties have good proposals”, though the party is likely to want to maintain some distance from other far right parties.
Jobbik intends to set up a new political bloc in co-operation with the BNP.
The BNP confirmed this move, and said it was also exploring tie-ups with Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front Nationale in France, Austria’s Freedom Party and Vlaams Belang of Flanders. The party would also approach the Dutch Freedom Party, a spokesman said, though agreeing on a leader for the bloc could prove difficult.
Jobbik has ruled out co-operation with the Greater Romania Party, which won three seats, or the Slovak National party, which won a seat, because both are fiercely anti-Hungarian.
Parties mull election implications
Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis (above) makes a televised address following defeat in Sunday’s election. A worker cleans up (left) at New Democracy’s election center in Athens. Sources said yesterday the premier is considering a reshuffle but is unlikely to call elections in the fall. He is likely to wait for PASOK to force elections in March over the presidential nomination.
The implications of Sunday’s European Parliament elections became clearer yesterday, as Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis pondered his next move following his first defeat at the polls to PASOK leader George Papandreou, although the results also gave the Socialists plenty of food for thought.
The final confirmed results had PASOK 4.3 percent ahead of New Democracy (36.6 to 32.3), but the fact that only 52.6 percent of almost 10 million eligible voters cast their ballots meant that it was difficult for either party to read too much into the numbers when considering what might happen in the next general election.
Although PASOK won, it attracted 195,000 fewer voters than in the European elections five years ago and 849,000 fewer than in the general elections of 2007.
The low turnout also affected ND dramatically. Almost one in two voters that supported the conservatives two years ago failed to back them this time. Almost 1 million fewer people voted for the government on Sunday than in 2004.
Karamanlis commented on the record abstention in his speech in the early hours of yesterday morning.
“It is clear that a lot of New Democracy voters chose to protest by sending us a message, mainly through abstention,” he said, promising a government that would be speedier, more decisive and effective.
Papandreou did not make reference to the stay-away vote in his speech and PASOK sources said that the party was trying to make sense of the low turnout yesterday, while not getting carried away with its victory.
Giorgos Papaconstantinou, who headed PASOK’s list of potential MEPs, said many ND supporters stayed at home because “they did not feel ready to vote for another party but wanted to protest by abstaining.” He argued that PASOK voters abstained because the opinion polls before the election had predicted a comfortable victory for the Socialists so they did not feel compelled to cast their ballots.
The prime minister met with close aides yesterday in a bid to digest the results and sources indicated that he would soon decide on a series of moves aimed at rebuilding faith in his government. These are likely to include tackling illegal immigration and boosting public order, both of which are issues where the conservatives lost votes to the right-wing Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS), which was the only parliamentary party to see its support rise. It attracted 162,000 voters in the March 2004 general election, but on Sunday 367,000 people voted for the nationalists.
The implications of Sunday’s European Parliament elections became clearer yesterday, as Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis pondered his next move following his first defeat at the polls to PASOK leader George Papandreou, although the results also gave the Socialists plenty of food for thought.
The final confirmed results had PASOK 4.3 percent ahead of New Democracy (36.6 to 32.3), but the fact that only 52.6 percent of almost 10 million eligible voters cast their ballots meant that it was difficult for either party to read too much into the numbers when considering what might happen in the next general election.
Although PASOK won, it attracted 195,000 fewer voters than in the European elections five years ago and 849,000 fewer than in the general elections of 2007.
The low turnout also affected ND dramatically. Almost one in two voters that supported the conservatives two years ago failed to back them this time. Almost 1 million fewer people voted for the government on Sunday than in 2004.
Karamanlis commented on the record abstention in his speech in the early hours of yesterday morning.
“It is clear that a lot of New Democracy voters chose to protest by sending us a message, mainly through abstention,” he said, promising a government that would be speedier, more decisive and effective.
Papandreou did not make reference to the stay-away vote in his speech and PASOK sources said that the party was trying to make sense of the low turnout yesterday, while not getting carried away with its victory.
Giorgos Papaconstantinou, who headed PASOK’s list of potential MEPs, said many ND supporters stayed at home because “they did not feel ready to vote for another party but wanted to protest by abstaining.” He argued that PASOK voters abstained because the opinion polls before the election had predicted a comfortable victory for the Socialists so they did not feel compelled to cast their ballots.
The prime minister met with close aides yesterday in a bid to digest the results and sources indicated that he would soon decide on a series of moves aimed at rebuilding faith in his government. These are likely to include tackling illegal immigration and boosting public order, both of which are issues where the conservatives lost votes to the right-wing Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS), which was the only parliamentary party to see its support rise. It attracted 162,000 voters in the March 2004 general election, but on Sunday 367,000 people voted for the nationalists.
Voters steer Europe to the right
Voters steer Europe to the right
Centre-right parties have done well in elections to the European Parliament at the expense of the left.
Far-right and anti-immigration parties also made gains, as turnout figures plunged to 43% - the lowest since direct elections began 30 years ago.
The UK Labour Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party were heading for historic defeats.
The centre-right European People's Party (EPP) looks set to continue to hold power in the parliament.
Jose Manuel Barroso, who seems set for a second term as European Commission president following the centre-right success, thanked voters and assured them their voices would be heard.
"Overall, the results are an undeniable victory for those parties and candidates that support the European project and want to see the European Union delivering policy responses to their everyday concerns," he said.
Socialist leader Martin Schulz said his group's defeat would be analysed.
"It's a sad evening for social democracy in Europe. We are particularly disappointed, [it is] a bitter evening for us," he said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised the EPP's performance, saying: "This result shows that the core of society in Europe has become stronger."
Vice-president of the European Commission Margot Wallstrom said the low turnout was a "bad result".
Green gains
Fringe groups appear to have benefited, with far-right and anti-immigrant parties picking up seats in the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Slovakia and Hungary. The British National Party won two seats - its first ever in a nationwide election.
Greens also made gains - the Green-European Freedom Alliance bloc has so far taken 50 seats, compared with 43 in the last assembly.
Sweden's Pirate Party, which wants to legalise internet file sharing, won 7% of the national vote and one of the country's 18 seats in the European Parliament.
Several governments battling the economic downturn are facing a heavy defeat, says the BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels.
However, governing parties in France and Germany appear to have done relatively well despite the crisis.
Angela Merkel described the increase in the vote of her Christian Democrats over the Social Democrats as "sensational" and said it boded well for her chances in the nation's general election in September.
In results so far:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP trounced socialist opponents, while greens from the Europe-Ecologie party also made gains
In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right People of Freedom party won most votes - 35% - although that was well below his prediction. The anti-immigrant Northern League made strong gains
In the UK, the governing Labour Party suffered a serious defeat, gaining its lowest share of the vote for a century
Spain's conservative Popular Party beat the ruling Socialists, but the four percentage point margin was lower than they had expected
Poland's governing centre-right Civic Platform gained ground at the expense of the Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party
Portugal's conservative Social Democrats secured about 31% of the vote. The ruling Socialists fell a massive 18 percentage points from the last European election, to about 26%
Austria's far right increased its vote on the last European election but was well down on its percentage in last year's national polls
Greece's Socialist party, PASOK, bucked the European trend by securing the largest vote percentage, ahead of the ruling conservatives
Voters have been choosing representatives mainly from their own national parties, many of which then join EU-wide groupings with similarly-minded parties from other countries.
The centre-right EPP retains its place as the largest grouping over the past five years, securing an estimated 264 of the 736 seats (the overall number of seats in the assembly has been reduced from 785). The socialists are on 183, while the liberal ALDE has an estimated 84.
Provisional figures released by the EU suggested turnout was at an all-time low in some countries, including France, where it dropped to 40.5%.
Lowest turnout was seen in Slovakia (19.6%) and Lithuania (20.9%), while the highest figures came from Luxembourg (91%) and and Belgium (85.9%) - both countries where voting is compulsory.
Overall turnout has fallen at each European election in the last 30 years, from a high of nearly 62% in 1979.
Centre-right parties have done well in elections to the European Parliament at the expense of the left.
Far-right and anti-immigration parties also made gains, as turnout figures plunged to 43% - the lowest since direct elections began 30 years ago.
The UK Labour Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party were heading for historic defeats.
The centre-right European People's Party (EPP) looks set to continue to hold power in the parliament.
Jose Manuel Barroso, who seems set for a second term as European Commission president following the centre-right success, thanked voters and assured them their voices would be heard.
"Overall, the results are an undeniable victory for those parties and candidates that support the European project and want to see the European Union delivering policy responses to their everyday concerns," he said.
Socialist leader Martin Schulz said his group's defeat would be analysed.
"It's a sad evening for social democracy in Europe. We are particularly disappointed, [it is] a bitter evening for us," he said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised the EPP's performance, saying: "This result shows that the core of society in Europe has become stronger."
Vice-president of the European Commission Margot Wallstrom said the low turnout was a "bad result".
Green gains
Fringe groups appear to have benefited, with far-right and anti-immigrant parties picking up seats in the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Slovakia and Hungary. The British National Party won two seats - its first ever in a nationwide election.
Greens also made gains - the Green-European Freedom Alliance bloc has so far taken 50 seats, compared with 43 in the last assembly.
Sweden's Pirate Party, which wants to legalise internet file sharing, won 7% of the national vote and one of the country's 18 seats in the European Parliament.
Several governments battling the economic downturn are facing a heavy defeat, says the BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels.
However, governing parties in France and Germany appear to have done relatively well despite the crisis.
Angela Merkel described the increase in the vote of her Christian Democrats over the Social Democrats as "sensational" and said it boded well for her chances in the nation's general election in September.
In results so far:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP trounced socialist opponents, while greens from the Europe-Ecologie party also made gains
In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right People of Freedom party won most votes - 35% - although that was well below his prediction. The anti-immigrant Northern League made strong gains
In the UK, the governing Labour Party suffered a serious defeat, gaining its lowest share of the vote for a century
Spain's conservative Popular Party beat the ruling Socialists, but the four percentage point margin was lower than they had expected
Poland's governing centre-right Civic Platform gained ground at the expense of the Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party
Portugal's conservative Social Democrats secured about 31% of the vote. The ruling Socialists fell a massive 18 percentage points from the last European election, to about 26%
Austria's far right increased its vote on the last European election but was well down on its percentage in last year's national polls
Greece's Socialist party, PASOK, bucked the European trend by securing the largest vote percentage, ahead of the ruling conservatives
Voters have been choosing representatives mainly from their own national parties, many of which then join EU-wide groupings with similarly-minded parties from other countries.
The centre-right EPP retains its place as the largest grouping over the past five years, securing an estimated 264 of the 736 seats (the overall number of seats in the assembly has been reduced from 785). The socialists are on 183, while the liberal ALDE has an estimated 84.
Provisional figures released by the EU suggested turnout was at an all-time low in some countries, including France, where it dropped to 40.5%.
Lowest turnout was seen in Slovakia (19.6%) and Lithuania (20.9%), while the highest figures came from Luxembourg (91%) and and Belgium (85.9%) - both countries where voting is compulsory.
Overall turnout has fallen at each European election in the last 30 years, from a high of nearly 62% in 1979.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Turkey dismayed at tone of European electioneering
By Delphine Strauss
An outbreak of Turkey-bashing in the run-up to European elections has dismayed politicians and diplomats in Ankara already worried that progress towards European Union accession is grinding to a halt.
From Nicolas Sarkozy’s loud insistence that Turkey merits only a “privileged partnership” with the EU, to the nationalist rhetoric of hard-right parties in the Netherlands, Austria and Bulgaria, every hint of criticism is chewed over by the Turkish media as another rebuff to the 50 year campaign for EU membership.
Ahmet Davutoglu, who spent much of his first month as foreign minister shuttling around European capitals, has urged member states not to make Turkey’s integration “a domestic issue of discussion”.
But the bigger problem is that the doubts cast on Turkey’s long-term prospects of membership give its ruling Justice & Development party (AKP) no incentive to take political risks in order to drive through the reforms needed to advance negotiations.
Since late 2005, Turkey has regularly opened two areas of technical talks in each 6-month period. Now it will be lucky to open one – on taxation – before the end of the Czech presidency. Failure to pass legislation on trade unions means it cannot begin discussions on social policy and employment as officials had intended.
Because French and Cypriot objections stop Ankara opening many other chapters, all semblance of progress could halt next year – unless a breakthrough in Cypriot peace talks leads Turkey to heed a deadline to open ports to Greek Cypriot traffic.
“We need new blood, if we want this process not to die a natural death at the end of this year or early next,” said Cengiz Aktar, an academic at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir university, adding it would take “not just words but deeds” from government.
Egemen Bagis, appointed chief EU negotiator in January, glibly lists measures from the introduction of Kurdish language television to the state’s rehabilitation of a dead communist poet as evidence of Turkey’s commitment to reforms.
But another pro-European AKP deputy admits little has been done in the last year and not much time remains to push reforms through parliament before the EU makes its next assessment of progress.
The year-end review, which will also examine Turkey’s commitment to admit Greek Cypriot traffic, is unlikely to prompt member states to suspend negotiations entirely. But European diplomats who support Turkey’s accession bid say they are concerned at the prospect of further deferrals and postponements.
“Stagnation could further fuel the mutual estrangement - and this could send Ankara’s candidacy into a slow death spiral,” concurs Wolfango Piccoli at Eurasia group.
German elections in September are another worry: although Angela Merkel has recently softened her tone about Turkey’s bid, if she is able to govern without SPD coalition partners after the vote Ankara will lose its strongest German supporters.
Given the obstacles, Marc Pierini, Commission ambassador in Ankara, is admirably optimistic. Citing the examples of the UK, Spain and Bulgaria, he says: “Frustration goes together with the accession negotiations, but eventually it happens.”
An outbreak of Turkey-bashing in the run-up to European elections has dismayed politicians and diplomats in Ankara already worried that progress towards European Union accession is grinding to a halt.
From Nicolas Sarkozy’s loud insistence that Turkey merits only a “privileged partnership” with the EU, to the nationalist rhetoric of hard-right parties in the Netherlands, Austria and Bulgaria, every hint of criticism is chewed over by the Turkish media as another rebuff to the 50 year campaign for EU membership.
Ahmet Davutoglu, who spent much of his first month as foreign minister shuttling around European capitals, has urged member states not to make Turkey’s integration “a domestic issue of discussion”.
But the bigger problem is that the doubts cast on Turkey’s long-term prospects of membership give its ruling Justice & Development party (AKP) no incentive to take political risks in order to drive through the reforms needed to advance negotiations.
Since late 2005, Turkey has regularly opened two areas of technical talks in each 6-month period. Now it will be lucky to open one – on taxation – before the end of the Czech presidency. Failure to pass legislation on trade unions means it cannot begin discussions on social policy and employment as officials had intended.
Because French and Cypriot objections stop Ankara opening many other chapters, all semblance of progress could halt next year – unless a breakthrough in Cypriot peace talks leads Turkey to heed a deadline to open ports to Greek Cypriot traffic.
“We need new blood, if we want this process not to die a natural death at the end of this year or early next,” said Cengiz Aktar, an academic at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir university, adding it would take “not just words but deeds” from government.
Egemen Bagis, appointed chief EU negotiator in January, glibly lists measures from the introduction of Kurdish language television to the state’s rehabilitation of a dead communist poet as evidence of Turkey’s commitment to reforms.
But another pro-European AKP deputy admits little has been done in the last year and not much time remains to push reforms through parliament before the EU makes its next assessment of progress.
The year-end review, which will also examine Turkey’s commitment to admit Greek Cypriot traffic, is unlikely to prompt member states to suspend negotiations entirely. But European diplomats who support Turkey’s accession bid say they are concerned at the prospect of further deferrals and postponements.
“Stagnation could further fuel the mutual estrangement - and this could send Ankara’s candidacy into a slow death spiral,” concurs Wolfango Piccoli at Eurasia group.
German elections in September are another worry: although Angela Merkel has recently softened her tone about Turkey’s bid, if she is able to govern without SPD coalition partners after the vote Ankara will lose its strongest German supporters.
Given the obstacles, Marc Pierini, Commission ambassador in Ankara, is admirably optimistic. Citing the examples of the UK, Spain and Bulgaria, he says: “Frustration goes together with the accession negotiations, but eventually it happens.”
It’s time for the Greeks to turn things round – again
By George Pagoulatos
In an ironically symbolic picture from last December’s riots in Athens, the poster of Greece’s National Tourism Organisation appeared behind a shattered window, featuring the slogan: “Greece: The True Experience!”
George PagoulatosFive years ago, with euphoria over Greece’s entry to the eurozone still fresh, urban infrastructure expanding, a galloping growth rate and a new-found pride from the successful hosting of the 2004 Olympics, Greeks were living their True Experience. This modern-day Greek dream is now crumbling, and it is not just because of the global financial crisis.
Relatively speaking, the impact of the crisis on Greece has been less harsh, as it has been cushioned by the limited openness of the economy. Annual growth in gross domestic product averaged 2.9 per cent in 2008; it is projected to be stagnant or marginally negative for 2009.
Apart from the financial system, the crisis has particularly affected sectors that mostly relied on bank credit: construction and the housing sector – important growth engines in recent years – and the shipping industry.
It is also taking a toll on tourism, export manufacturing, and imports of capital goods and consumer durables. Credit has tightened, consumption has slowed down, and business investment has declined. The government has sought to finance public investment by using advance payments of European Union funds.
Yet Greece’s main economic problem is not an outcome of the crisis but of complacency during the prolonged boom that preceded it.
Over the last decade, average growth in gross domestic product approached 4 per cent, and the official unemployment rate declined from 12 per cent in 1999 to 7.6 per cent in 2008. The euro eliminated foreign exchange risk, allowed low interest rates, accelerated credit expansion and increased capital inflows.
For years, domestic demand grew faster than supply, sustaining an inflation rate higher than the eurozone average, and a growing external indebtedness of both the public and private sector. This imbalance is demonstrated in a current account deficit of as much as 13-14 per cent of GDP.
The second major imbalance is fiscal. The budget deficit rose to 5 per cent of GDP in 2008, activating the European Commission’s excessive deficit procedure. However, Greece’s fiscal problem is structural – not merely cyclical.
At 97.6 per cent in 2008, the Greek public debt-to-GDP ratio is the second highest in the European Union and rising. Governments failed to take advantage of the good times to put the public finances in order. Reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio towards the 60 per cent Maastricht reference level within the next decade will require primary surpluses of 4-5 per cent of GDP.
Fiscal consolidation means tackling tax and social security evasion, adopting fiscal discipline throughout government, ending preferential treatment for the governing party’s supporters in the form of public sector appointments or contracts,and curtailing the large defence budget, preferably through a mutual moratorium with Turkey.
Fiscal sustainability is further aggravated by rising pension costs. A limited reform in 2008 focused on unifying the system’s numerous pension funds. Without further reforms, pension costs are projected to reach 19 per cent of GDP by 2050, one of the highest in the EU.
Several structural weaknesses underlie Greece’s twin problem of external deficit and public debt. Despite some progress in the run-up to eurozone entry, competitiveness has declined again, largely as a result of inflation rates that have been persistently higher than the eurozone average. Higher corporate profit margins have been a major cause of inflation, indicating that better enforcement of market competition is needed.
A number of important reforms are incomplete: reducing red tape that impedes entrepreneurship; liberalising closed shops; encouraging people to start working earlier and retire later; improving the effectiveness of social protection spending; reforming education. Universities are being suffocated by over-regulation and student militancy.
Greece posts high rates of youth unemployment, long-term unemployment and female unemployment. Its employment rates are among the lowest in the eurozone, reflecting a longer stay in education (for the young), inadequate social care or employment flexibility (for women) and higher rates of early retirement (for women and older employees). Combined with demographic ageing, this means that Greece could in the future have one of the highest dependency ratios of retired to active population.
It is clear that the “convergence model”, which took Greece to the euro and allowed per capita income to catch up with the EU average, has exhausted its limits. It should be replaced by a more extrovert, competitiveness-oriented model, based on strengthening the productive base and productivity through investment and structural reforms. The national saving rate (public and private) must rise; exports and competitiveness have to converge to eurozone levels.
Greece has turned things around repeatedly in the past, switching from “success story” to “problem case” and back again. Over the past 50 years, the country has posted the second-highest average economic growth in the EU-15. After losing ground in the 1980s it became a growth champion once again from the mid-1990s. A once-destitute Mediterranean economy has raised per capita GDP to 90 per cent of the eurozone average.
Greece has a comparative advantage in services, especially tourism and shipping. Leaders in south-east Europe, Greek banks remain profitable and well-capitalised by current EU standards. The country can develop into a regional business centre and energy hub. Greece’s geography and climate could attract retiring baby boomers, creating investment opportunities in health and other services.
Provided it can summon up the will to reform, Greece can turn itself around once again.
In an ironically symbolic picture from last December’s riots in Athens, the poster of Greece’s National Tourism Organisation appeared behind a shattered window, featuring the slogan: “Greece: The True Experience!”
George PagoulatosFive years ago, with euphoria over Greece’s entry to the eurozone still fresh, urban infrastructure expanding, a galloping growth rate and a new-found pride from the successful hosting of the 2004 Olympics, Greeks were living their True Experience. This modern-day Greek dream is now crumbling, and it is not just because of the global financial crisis.
Relatively speaking, the impact of the crisis on Greece has been less harsh, as it has been cushioned by the limited openness of the economy. Annual growth in gross domestic product averaged 2.9 per cent in 2008; it is projected to be stagnant or marginally negative for 2009.
Apart from the financial system, the crisis has particularly affected sectors that mostly relied on bank credit: construction and the housing sector – important growth engines in recent years – and the shipping industry.
It is also taking a toll on tourism, export manufacturing, and imports of capital goods and consumer durables. Credit has tightened, consumption has slowed down, and business investment has declined. The government has sought to finance public investment by using advance payments of European Union funds.
Yet Greece’s main economic problem is not an outcome of the crisis but of complacency during the prolonged boom that preceded it.
Over the last decade, average growth in gross domestic product approached 4 per cent, and the official unemployment rate declined from 12 per cent in 1999 to 7.6 per cent in 2008. The euro eliminated foreign exchange risk, allowed low interest rates, accelerated credit expansion and increased capital inflows.
For years, domestic demand grew faster than supply, sustaining an inflation rate higher than the eurozone average, and a growing external indebtedness of both the public and private sector. This imbalance is demonstrated in a current account deficit of as much as 13-14 per cent of GDP.
The second major imbalance is fiscal. The budget deficit rose to 5 per cent of GDP in 2008, activating the European Commission’s excessive deficit procedure. However, Greece’s fiscal problem is structural – not merely cyclical.
At 97.6 per cent in 2008, the Greek public debt-to-GDP ratio is the second highest in the European Union and rising. Governments failed to take advantage of the good times to put the public finances in order. Reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio towards the 60 per cent Maastricht reference level within the next decade will require primary surpluses of 4-5 per cent of GDP.
Fiscal consolidation means tackling tax and social security evasion, adopting fiscal discipline throughout government, ending preferential treatment for the governing party’s supporters in the form of public sector appointments or contracts,and curtailing the large defence budget, preferably through a mutual moratorium with Turkey.
Fiscal sustainability is further aggravated by rising pension costs. A limited reform in 2008 focused on unifying the system’s numerous pension funds. Without further reforms, pension costs are projected to reach 19 per cent of GDP by 2050, one of the highest in the EU.
Several structural weaknesses underlie Greece’s twin problem of external deficit and public debt. Despite some progress in the run-up to eurozone entry, competitiveness has declined again, largely as a result of inflation rates that have been persistently higher than the eurozone average. Higher corporate profit margins have been a major cause of inflation, indicating that better enforcement of market competition is needed.
A number of important reforms are incomplete: reducing red tape that impedes entrepreneurship; liberalising closed shops; encouraging people to start working earlier and retire later; improving the effectiveness of social protection spending; reforming education. Universities are being suffocated by over-regulation and student militancy.
Greece posts high rates of youth unemployment, long-term unemployment and female unemployment. Its employment rates are among the lowest in the eurozone, reflecting a longer stay in education (for the young), inadequate social care or employment flexibility (for women) and higher rates of early retirement (for women and older employees). Combined with demographic ageing, this means that Greece could in the future have one of the highest dependency ratios of retired to active population.
It is clear that the “convergence model”, which took Greece to the euro and allowed per capita income to catch up with the EU average, has exhausted its limits. It should be replaced by a more extrovert, competitiveness-oriented model, based on strengthening the productive base and productivity through investment and structural reforms. The national saving rate (public and private) must rise; exports and competitiveness have to converge to eurozone levels.
Greece has turned things around repeatedly in the past, switching from “success story” to “problem case” and back again. Over the past 50 years, the country has posted the second-highest average economic growth in the EU-15. After losing ground in the 1980s it became a growth champion once again from the mid-1990s. A once-destitute Mediterranean economy has raised per capita GDP to 90 per cent of the eurozone average.
Greece has a comparative advantage in services, especially tourism and shipping. Leaders in south-east Europe, Greek banks remain profitable and well-capitalised by current EU standards. The country can develop into a regional business centre and energy hub. Greece’s geography and climate could attract retiring baby boomers, creating investment opportunities in health and other services.
Provided it can summon up the will to reform, Greece can turn itself around once again.
Cradle of democracy is rocked by angry voters
By Kerin Hope
In the land that invented democracy, disillusionment with party politics is running high, for reasons that would seem familiar to many 5th century BC Athenians.
There is criticism of clientelism or “jobs for the boys”, allegations of corruption and a sense that ordinary citizens’ concerns have been brushed aside by the political elite.
As a consequence, Sunday’s European parliament elections may see an unusually low turn-out by Greek voters. Voters are expected to punish both the governing right-of-centre New Democracy party, led by Costas Karamanlis, the prime minister, and George Papandreou’s PanHellenic Socialist Movement, the main opposition party.
The Socialists have an edge going into the election, according to opinion polls, though many leftwing voters could shift to a more radical party.
The options include the still-Stalinist communists and the Left Coalition, a rallying point for the “€700 generation” of young graduates with an income of less than €700 a month.
Support is also growing for the EcoGreens, the most popular environmental party, who are forecast to beat the parliamentary threshold of 3 per cent of the vote and win their first ever seat.
But many voters fed up with Greece’s dynastic politics – a system that has resulted in a politician with the surname of “Karamanlis” or “Papandreou” heading one of the two mainstream parties for the past 50 years – are likely to show dissatisfaction by staying away from the poll.
The conservatives will lose a sizeable number of votes to Laos, a far-right party led by a former New Democracy deputy, and a few to Chryssi Avghi, a rightwing extremist group that has raised its profile by running for the European parliament.
Last month members of Chryssi Avghi attacked a derelict court building in central Athens where immigrants from Afghanistan and north Africa have been living for months in squalid conditions. Human rights activists criticised the police for failing to intervene.
Mr Karamanlis has not lived up to his pledge when he came to power in 2004 to end corruption and “re-invent the state” as a driver of social and economic reform.
The social unrest that erupted last December, causing damage of more than €300m to shops and other property during two weeks of rioting in Athens and other cities, still simmers close to the surface.
Two new local extremist groups have emerged in recent months, staging a series of bomb attacks against banks, government offices and police stations. No arrests have been made.
A wave of immigration from conflict-hit regions in the Middle East and Afghanistan threatens to overwhelm Greek authorities. Athens last month saw its first Muslim protests, after a police officer reportedly ripped an Iraqi immigrant’s copy of the Koran.
An estimated 250,000 migrants have arrived in the past two years, mostly crossing by small boat from Turkey to east Aegean islands that have few resources to cope. The majority move to Athens.
Having handed out work and residency permits to about 600,000 immigrants from Albania and other former communist states, Greece already has one of the highest ratios of migrants to local population in the European Union.
Few of the current wave of immigrants have been granted asylum or allowed to work. The Council of Europe’s senior human rights official last January criticised Greece for not doing enough for new arrivals. “The government does not have an immigration policy,” says Mr Papandreou.
With the economy growing at an average of 4 per cent yearly and plenty of unskilled jobs available for immigrants, it was relatively easy for the government to brush social issues aside.
But as recession looms, the official jobless rate has edged up from 7.6 per cent to 9.7 per cent of the workforce in the past six months.
Unemployment among women and new entrants to the workforce is in the high double-digits.
Jobs are especially scarce for young Greek high-fliers with degrees from abroad. “There used to be opportunities in Spain, France and Dubai if you couldn’t find a job with a local company, but those are much fewer this year,” says Ilias Papadakis, a UK-trained electronics specialist.
Greece has been partly sheltered from the impact of global downturn because its economy is based on services, not manufacturing. But that also means it may take longer to recover than its eurozone partners and face several years of weak growth.
Transfers from the EU’s structural funds that have transformed the country’s infrastructure over the past two decades will slow sharply after the present €20bn package ends in 2013.
Inflows of foreign direct investment are low compared with central Europe, in spite of Greek aspirations to become a base for international companies doing business in the Balkans.
Yet investor interest has picked up especially in the energy sector, says Dimitrios Pazaitis, chief executive of the national investment agency. “There are opportunities to be found in a downturn,” he says.
The government’s critics say reforms of labour markets, education and the state pension system have been half-hearted and that more radical steps are needed if Greece is to compete effectively in Europe once the downturn ends.
But the conservatives’ embattled position – halfway through their second term they have only a two-seat majority in parliament – puts constraints on policy-making.
Foreign policy has been put on the back burner as Mr Karamanlis focuses his attention on domestic politics.
Greek efforts to bring its western Balkan neighbours closer to Europe have faltered. Greece has failed to recognise Kosovo’s independence on the grounds it sets a precedent for a permanent division of Cyprus.
The dispute with Macedonia over its use of an ancient Greek name still festers. Greece’s veto of Macedonian membership of Nato has affected its relations with the US as well as producing angry reaction in Skopje.
Relations with Turkey are also cooler, over Ankara’s continued refusal to recognise Cyprus, although bilateral trade and investment continue to make gains.
While Mr Karamanlis’s leadership is not under threat, his party’s credibility is at a low ebb.
A series of financial scandals, from a fraudulent land swap involving property belonging to a monastery on Mount Athos to sales of structured bonds at inflated prices to state-controlled pension funds, have highlighted a disturbing lack of accountability in the political system.
A judicial investigation revealed that several deputy ministers were involved in the land swap, but the case is not expected to come to court because parliament failed to vote in favour of lifting their immunity.
When the government shut down parliament without warning for the European election campaign, a week earlier than expected, the Socialists said the move was made to halt further investigations of scandals.
Whatever the outcome of Sunday’s vote, several of Greece’s new European parliament members will be prepared for only a short stay in Strasbourg.
Both main parties are gearing up for a general election next spring, when parliament is due to elect a president. Talented euro-deputies are usually among the first to be offered cabinet posts.
A consensus would be needed to re-elect the incumbent, Carolos Papoulias, a Socialist former foreign minister, or another candidate, by the required three-fifths majority.
Otherwise a general election takes place, with the new parliament empowered to elect the head of state – a ceremonial post – on a simple majority.
Provided the Socialists have a convincing lead in opinion polls, and that there are signs of economic recovery later in 2010, Mr Papandreou will come under pressure from his party to bring the government down.
But having lost two elections already, Mr Papandreou, a former foreign minister, needs to be quite certain of victory – or he will be looking for a job outside Greek politics.
In the land that invented democracy, disillusionment with party politics is running high, for reasons that would seem familiar to many 5th century BC Athenians.
There is criticism of clientelism or “jobs for the boys”, allegations of corruption and a sense that ordinary citizens’ concerns have been brushed aside by the political elite.
As a consequence, Sunday’s European parliament elections may see an unusually low turn-out by Greek voters. Voters are expected to punish both the governing right-of-centre New Democracy party, led by Costas Karamanlis, the prime minister, and George Papandreou’s PanHellenic Socialist Movement, the main opposition party.
The Socialists have an edge going into the election, according to opinion polls, though many leftwing voters could shift to a more radical party.
The options include the still-Stalinist communists and the Left Coalition, a rallying point for the “€700 generation” of young graduates with an income of less than €700 a month.
Support is also growing for the EcoGreens, the most popular environmental party, who are forecast to beat the parliamentary threshold of 3 per cent of the vote and win their first ever seat.
But many voters fed up with Greece’s dynastic politics – a system that has resulted in a politician with the surname of “Karamanlis” or “Papandreou” heading one of the two mainstream parties for the past 50 years – are likely to show dissatisfaction by staying away from the poll.
The conservatives will lose a sizeable number of votes to Laos, a far-right party led by a former New Democracy deputy, and a few to Chryssi Avghi, a rightwing extremist group that has raised its profile by running for the European parliament.
Last month members of Chryssi Avghi attacked a derelict court building in central Athens where immigrants from Afghanistan and north Africa have been living for months in squalid conditions. Human rights activists criticised the police for failing to intervene.
Mr Karamanlis has not lived up to his pledge when he came to power in 2004 to end corruption and “re-invent the state” as a driver of social and economic reform.
The social unrest that erupted last December, causing damage of more than €300m to shops and other property during two weeks of rioting in Athens and other cities, still simmers close to the surface.
Two new local extremist groups have emerged in recent months, staging a series of bomb attacks against banks, government offices and police stations. No arrests have been made.
A wave of immigration from conflict-hit regions in the Middle East and Afghanistan threatens to overwhelm Greek authorities. Athens last month saw its first Muslim protests, after a police officer reportedly ripped an Iraqi immigrant’s copy of the Koran.
An estimated 250,000 migrants have arrived in the past two years, mostly crossing by small boat from Turkey to east Aegean islands that have few resources to cope. The majority move to Athens.
Having handed out work and residency permits to about 600,000 immigrants from Albania and other former communist states, Greece already has one of the highest ratios of migrants to local population in the European Union.
Few of the current wave of immigrants have been granted asylum or allowed to work. The Council of Europe’s senior human rights official last January criticised Greece for not doing enough for new arrivals. “The government does not have an immigration policy,” says Mr Papandreou.
With the economy growing at an average of 4 per cent yearly and plenty of unskilled jobs available for immigrants, it was relatively easy for the government to brush social issues aside.
But as recession looms, the official jobless rate has edged up from 7.6 per cent to 9.7 per cent of the workforce in the past six months.
Unemployment among women and new entrants to the workforce is in the high double-digits.
Jobs are especially scarce for young Greek high-fliers with degrees from abroad. “There used to be opportunities in Spain, France and Dubai if you couldn’t find a job with a local company, but those are much fewer this year,” says Ilias Papadakis, a UK-trained electronics specialist.
Greece has been partly sheltered from the impact of global downturn because its economy is based on services, not manufacturing. But that also means it may take longer to recover than its eurozone partners and face several years of weak growth.
Transfers from the EU’s structural funds that have transformed the country’s infrastructure over the past two decades will slow sharply after the present €20bn package ends in 2013.
Inflows of foreign direct investment are low compared with central Europe, in spite of Greek aspirations to become a base for international companies doing business in the Balkans.
Yet investor interest has picked up especially in the energy sector, says Dimitrios Pazaitis, chief executive of the national investment agency. “There are opportunities to be found in a downturn,” he says.
The government’s critics say reforms of labour markets, education and the state pension system have been half-hearted and that more radical steps are needed if Greece is to compete effectively in Europe once the downturn ends.
But the conservatives’ embattled position – halfway through their second term they have only a two-seat majority in parliament – puts constraints on policy-making.
Foreign policy has been put on the back burner as Mr Karamanlis focuses his attention on domestic politics.
Greek efforts to bring its western Balkan neighbours closer to Europe have faltered. Greece has failed to recognise Kosovo’s independence on the grounds it sets a precedent for a permanent division of Cyprus.
The dispute with Macedonia over its use of an ancient Greek name still festers. Greece’s veto of Macedonian membership of Nato has affected its relations with the US as well as producing angry reaction in Skopje.
Relations with Turkey are also cooler, over Ankara’s continued refusal to recognise Cyprus, although bilateral trade and investment continue to make gains.
While Mr Karamanlis’s leadership is not under threat, his party’s credibility is at a low ebb.
A series of financial scandals, from a fraudulent land swap involving property belonging to a monastery on Mount Athos to sales of structured bonds at inflated prices to state-controlled pension funds, have highlighted a disturbing lack of accountability in the political system.
A judicial investigation revealed that several deputy ministers were involved in the land swap, but the case is not expected to come to court because parliament failed to vote in favour of lifting their immunity.
When the government shut down parliament without warning for the European election campaign, a week earlier than expected, the Socialists said the move was made to halt further investigations of scandals.
Whatever the outcome of Sunday’s vote, several of Greece’s new European parliament members will be prepared for only a short stay in Strasbourg.
Both main parties are gearing up for a general election next spring, when parliament is due to elect a president. Talented euro-deputies are usually among the first to be offered cabinet posts.
A consensus would be needed to re-elect the incumbent, Carolos Papoulias, a Socialist former foreign minister, or another candidate, by the required three-fifths majority.
Otherwise a general election takes place, with the new parliament empowered to elect the head of state – a ceremonial post – on a simple majority.
Provided the Socialists have a convincing lead in opinion polls, and that there are signs of economic recovery later in 2010, Mr Papandreou will come under pressure from his party to bring the government down.
But having lost two elections already, Mr Papandreou, a former foreign minister, needs to be quite certain of victory – or he will be looking for a job outside Greek politics.
Text of Obama’s speech at Cairo University
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 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 am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of 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 co-existence 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 11th, 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. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon 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. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly 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 Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – 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.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am 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 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 University – 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 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 know, too, 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, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, 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 Koran 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 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.”
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 – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than 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 of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. 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: 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. And 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 subjugating one another to serve 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 of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
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 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 of 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 Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda 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 Qaeda 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 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 Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six 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 – 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 Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and 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.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is 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 have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
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 that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is 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 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 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 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.
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, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of 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 sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, 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. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought 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 interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. 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 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; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is 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 responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and 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.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And 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 part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. 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 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 flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of 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, 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 indeed 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 have 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.
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 is 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 nations hold nuclear weapons. That is 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 upon 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. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
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 are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who 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 devout Christians worshiped 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, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And 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 we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working 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 cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is 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 that I want to address is women’s rights.
I know there is 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 and Indonesia, we have 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.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and 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. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of 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 contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies 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.
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 many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps 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 countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create 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, and grow new crops. And today I am 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 on behalf of the world 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. 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 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 is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; 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 also 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 heart of billions. 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 Koran tells us, “O 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.
We meet at a time of 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 co-existence 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 11th, 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. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon 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. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly 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 Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – 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.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am 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 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 University – 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 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 know, too, 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, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, 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 Koran 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 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.”
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 – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than 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 of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. 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: 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. And 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 subjugating one another to serve 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 of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
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 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 of 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 Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda 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 Qaeda 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 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 Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six 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 – 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 Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and 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.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is 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 have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
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 that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is 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 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 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 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.
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, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of 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 sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, 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. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought 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 interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. 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 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; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is 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 responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and 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.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And 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 part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. 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 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 flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of 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, 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 indeed 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 have 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.
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 is 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 nations hold nuclear weapons. That is 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 upon 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. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
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 are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who 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 devout Christians worshiped 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, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And 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 we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working 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 cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is 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 that I want to address is women’s rights.
I know there is 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 and Indonesia, we have 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.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and 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. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of 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 contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies 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.
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 many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps 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 countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create 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, and grow new crops. And today I am 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 on behalf of the world 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. 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 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 is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; 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 also 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 heart of billions. 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 Koran tells us, “O 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.
Obama reaches out to Muslim world
President Barack Obama has said the "cycle of suspicion and discord" between the United States and the Muslim world must end.
In a keynote speech in Cairo, Mr Obama called for a "new beginning" in ties.
He admitted there had been "years of distrust" and said both sides needed to make a "sustained effort... to respect one another and seek common ground".
Mr Obama said the US bond with Israel was unbreakable but described the Palestinians' plight as "intolerable".
The president made a number of references to the Koran and called on all faiths to live together in peace.
He received a standing ovation at the end of his speech at Cairo University.
White House officials had said the speech was intended to start a process to "re-energise the dialogue with the Muslim world".
'Not so unique'
Mr Obama said: "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect."
He said "violent extremists" had bred fear and that this "cycle of suspicion and discord must end".
Mr Obama accepted that "no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust" but urged both sides to "say openly the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors".
He cited the Koran as saying: "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."
Mr Obama said Islam had "always been a part of America's story".
He added that much had been made of the fact an African-American named Barack Hussein Obama had become US president, but he insisted his personal story was "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 - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims."
'Intolerable'
The president also said Muslim perceptions of the US must change.
"Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."
Mr Obama said America was not at war with Islam, but would confront violent extremists who threatened its security.
On the key issues of Iraq and Afghanistan, the president said the US sought no permanent bases in either country.
He said: "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 Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."
On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Mr Obama said the bond with Israel was "unbreakable".
He said: "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong."
But he also said the "situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable".
"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Mr Obama said.
On the key issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Mr Obama said "there can be no progress towards peace without a halt to such construction".
Israel is resisting calls to freeze building activity but Palestinian leaders have said there can be no progress towards peace without a halt.
After the speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned ministers to a special meeting and ordered aides and officials not to comment until a government statement was released.
The statement said the Israeli government hoped the speech "will indeed lead to a new era of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel".
BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says Mr Obama was tough on both sides - perhaps tougher on Israel than we are used to hearing from an American president.
Our correspondent says Mr Obama made it clear there was no justification for Holocaust denial but he seemed to associate the state of the Palestinians with that of slaves in America.
A spokesman for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said the speech was a "good start and an important step towards a new American policy".
The AFP news agency quoted Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, as saying the speech showed "tangible change" but also contained contradictions.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, Mr Obama said: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons" and said Iran had the right to peaceful nuclear power.
But he said there should be no nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Before Mr Obama spoke, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had
saying the US was still "deeply hated" in the Middle East.
On democracy, Mr Obama said that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone".
"No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
The president also touched on women's rights, saying: "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons."
Mr Obama arrived in Egypt from a visit to Saudi Arabia.
Later on Thursday he visited the pyramids before leaving for Germany and France.
In a keynote speech in Cairo, Mr Obama called for a "new beginning" in ties.
He admitted there had been "years of distrust" and said both sides needed to make a "sustained effort... to respect one another and seek common ground".
Mr Obama said the US bond with Israel was unbreakable but described the Palestinians' plight as "intolerable".
The president made a number of references to the Koran and called on all faiths to live together in peace.
He received a standing ovation at the end of his speech at Cairo University.
White House officials had said the speech was intended to start a process to "re-energise the dialogue with the Muslim world".
'Not so unique'
Mr Obama said: "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect."
He said "violent extremists" had bred fear and that this "cycle of suspicion and discord must end".
Mr Obama accepted that "no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust" but urged both sides to "say openly the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors".
He cited the Koran as saying: "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."
Mr Obama said Islam had "always been a part of America's story".
He added that much had been made of the fact an African-American named Barack Hussein Obama had become US president, but he insisted his personal story was "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 - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims."
'Intolerable'
The president also said Muslim perceptions of the US must change.
"Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."
Mr Obama said America was not at war with Islam, but would confront violent extremists who threatened its security.
On the key issues of Iraq and Afghanistan, the president said the US sought no permanent bases in either country.
He said: "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 Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."
On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Mr Obama said the bond with Israel was "unbreakable".
He said: "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong."
But he also said the "situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable".
"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Mr Obama said.
On the key issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Mr Obama said "there can be no progress towards peace without a halt to such construction".
Israel is resisting calls to freeze building activity but Palestinian leaders have said there can be no progress towards peace without a halt.
After the speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned ministers to a special meeting and ordered aides and officials not to comment until a government statement was released.
The statement said the Israeli government hoped the speech "will indeed lead to a new era of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world and Israel".
BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says Mr Obama was tough on both sides - perhaps tougher on Israel than we are used to hearing from an American president.
Our correspondent says Mr Obama made it clear there was no justification for Holocaust denial but he seemed to associate the state of the Palestinians with that of slaves in America.
A spokesman for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said the speech was a "good start and an important step towards a new American policy".
The AFP news agency quoted Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, as saying the speech showed "tangible change" but also contained contradictions.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, Mr Obama said: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons" and said Iran had the right to peaceful nuclear power.
But he said there should be no nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Before Mr Obama spoke, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had
saying the US was still "deeply hated" in the Middle East.
On democracy, Mr Obama said that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone".
"No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
The president also touched on women's rights, saying: "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons."
Mr Obama arrived in Egypt from a visit to Saudi Arabia.
Later on Thursday he visited the pyramids before leaving for Germany and France.
Turkey Bets on Regional Influence as EU Hopes Fade
By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp, Daniel Steinvorth and Bernhard Zand
Frustrated by European opposition to its EU membership bid, Turkey is looking instead to its eastern and southern neighbors in a bid to flex its regional muscles. But will courting the Arab street actually bring Ankara any benefits?
At the Sütlüce Cultural and Congress Center on the Golden Horn in Istanbul, experts and officials from around the world have come together to talk about water. The thousands attending the event include water experts, presidents and ministers, and they are here to talk about the Euphrates, the Nile and the Tigris, about major dams and about the privatization of entire rivers. One of mankind's future problems is being debated, and it is the Turks who are hosting the event. A coincidence?
Ankara, the Ataturk Mausoleum: Two men pay their respects to the founder of the Turkish republic, one wearing a brown robe with a sheepskin cap, the other wearing a suit. They have many problems in common, chief among them the fact that they are both leaders of states on the brink. The two men are Pakistani Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Turkish President Abdullah Gül, of all people, has brought them together. A coincidence?
In Ankara, US President Barack Obama is addressing the Turkish parliament. He has nothing but good things to say about Ataturk and his political heirs, the government's reforms and Turkey's geopolitical importance -- precisely the sorts of things for which the country, desperate for recognition, has been waiting so long. Ankara, of all places, is the last stop on Obama's first trip abroad as president. This, at least, is no coincidence.
Presidents and militia leaders, diplomats, military chiefs of staff and the heads of intelligence services from the Middle East are choosing the city on the Bosporus as a meeting place, and economic delegations are visiting Turkey. Even Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant, chooses to visit Ankara, because he knows that he will not get a lecture there.
The Turks, who always used to complain to their Western allies about their rough neighborhood, apparently no longer have any enemies in the east. Turkey's old rival Russia has since become its most important energy and trading partner. Syria and Iraq, two countries with which Ankara has in the past been on the brink of war, are now friends of Turkey, and relations are even improving with Armenia. The Arabs, who never truly took to the successors of the Ottomans, now look with admiration to what they call the "Turkish model," a dynamic, open country that has a better handle on its problems than they do. But what caused the transformation?
Europe is to blame. When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan assumed office in 2003, he planned to lead Turkey into the European Union. But Europe was unmoved by this vision, and it has also lost much of its appeal within Turkey. According to Germany's Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think tank linked to the center-left Social Democratic Party, as the Europeans have become weary of expansion, Turkey has lost interest in joining the EU. Indeed, what Erdogan meant when he spoke of Turkey's "alternative" to becoming an EU member is becoming increasingly clear.
Critics and supporters alike describe this new course as "neo-Ottomanism." Ankara remains formally committed to its European ambitions. However, frustrated by the open rejection with which it has long been met in Paris, Vienna and Berlin, and which it has been facing once again during the EU election campaign, Turkey is focusing increasingly on its role as a peacekeeping power in a region it either ruled or dominated for centuries.
Turkey's change of course raises fundamental questions for Europe. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for Turkey to be looking more to the south and east than to the west these days? Does this shift speak in favor of or against the eternal EU candidate? And wouldn't the reorientation of Turkish foreign policy be a welcome excuse to conveniently bury the unpopular project of Turkish EU membership for good?
The architect of Turkey's new foreign policy, Ahmet Davutoglu, 50, would certainly disagree. Davutoglu is a short man with a moustache who is a professor of political science and, since the beginning of May, the country's new foreign minister. He has not yet broken with the West: Only recently, he told his counterparts in Brussels that his country would be "not a burden but a boon for Europe."
But Davutoglu, the author of the remarkable book "Stratejik Derinlik" ("Strategic Depth"), in which he discusses "multidimensional policy" at length, follows a different compass than his predecessors, most of whom were the sons of civil servants from Ankara and western Turkey, drilled in Kemalist ideology and focused entirely on Nato, Europe and the United States.
Davutoglu, like President Gül, is from Central Anatolia and a member of a new elite influenced by Islamic thought. He completed his secondary-school education at a German overseas school, learned Arabic and taught at an Islamic university in Malaysia. He believes that a one-sided Western orientation is unhealthy for a country like Turkey.
Davutoglu is convinced that Ankara must be on good terms with all its neighbors, and it cannot fear contact with the countries and organizations branded as pariahs by the West, namely Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. He believes that Turkey should have no qualms about acknowledging its Ottoman past -- in other words, it should become a respected regional power throughout the territory once ruled by the Ottoman Empire (see graphic).
The Turkish press touts Davutoglu as "Turkey's Kissinger," and even Erdogan and Gül refer to him as "hoca" ("venerable teacher"). The country's foreign policy increasingly bears his signature. For example, at his suggestion, Turkish diplomats revived talks between Syria and Israel that had been discontinued in 2000, leading to secret peace talks that began in Istanbul in 2004. However, the talks were temporarily suspended in late 2008 because of parliamentary elections in Israel and the Gaza offensive.
The Turks say that they achieved more during the Gaza conflict than Middle East veterans like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, arguing that Hamas's willingness to accept Israel's ceasefire offer was attributable to Ankara's intervention. They also say that the fact that Erdogan angrily broke off a discussion with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Summit in Davos cemented his reputation in the Islamic world as a friend of the Palestinians. When street fighting erupted in Lebanon between supporters of the pro-Western government and of Hezbollah in May 2008, Erdogan intervened as a mediator.
Ankara is also seeking to reduce tensions in the Caucasus region, where the Turks have often acted against Russia, prompting Moscow to accuse Turkey of being sympathetic to the Chechen cause. After the war in Georgia last summer, the Erdogan government brought together officials from Tbilisi and Moscow. Turkey and Armenia are now seeking to overcome long-standing hostility by establishing diplomatic relations and reopening their shared border.
Off the Horn of Africa, the US Fifth Fleet turned over the leadership of Combined Task Force 151, which is responsible for combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, to the Turkish navy. At the same time, a man paid an official visit to Ankara who had not appeared in public since 2007: Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, the head of the notorious Mahdi Army militia. Davutoglu had sent a private jet to bring him to Turkey from his exile in Iran.
Compared with the cool treatment Turkey gave its southern and eastern neighbors for decades, this is a stunning about-face. But not everyone approves. Critics like political scientist Soner Cagaptay describe Ankara's foreign policy as "pro-Arab Islamist." In a recent op-ed for the Turkish daily Hurriyet, Cagaptay argued that Turkish diplomats, who had once "looked to Europe, particularly France, for political inspiration" have now fallen for the Arab world, and generally for Islamists -- in other words, for Hamas instead of secular Fatah, or Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood instead of the government in Cairo. "However, being popular on the Arab street is not necessarily an asset for Turkey, since in autocracies popularity on the street does not translate into soft power in the capitals," Cagaptay argues.
Diplomats like Hakki Akil, the Turkish ambassador in Abu Dhabi, disagree. According to Akil, Turkey has acquired "soft power" by expanding its sphere of influence from the Balkans to Afghanistan, transporting Russian, Caspian Sea and Iranian oil and gas to the West, and building housing and airports in Kurdish northern Iraq. Europe, says Akil, ought to be pleased with Ankara's course. As Akil's boss Davutoglu said in Brussels, political stability, a secure energy corridor and a strong partner on its southeastern flank are all "in the fundamental interest of the EU."
In truth, everyone involved knows that Turkey doesn't stand a chance of becoming a full member of the European club in the foreseeable future -- and probably never will. Of course, no one in Brussels is willing or able to admit this. The EU stands by the accession negotiations without limitations, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso repeats on a regular basis.
But these very negotiations are hardly moving forward. According to a recent internal European Commission report, Turkey has made "only limited progress." Some EU countries have already abandoned the idea of accepting Turkey into their midst. In Bavaria, conservative Christian Social Union campaigners promote a message of "No to Turkey" as they make the rounds of beer tents. At a televised campaign appearance in Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy made their opposition to EU membership for Turkey clear.
Ironically, Turkey's strategic importance for Europe "is even greater today than in the days of the Cold War," says Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament for the conservative Christian Democratic Union who specializes in foreign policy issues. And then there is the paradox of the fact that the more intensively Turkey, out of frustration with Europe, engages with its eastern neighbors, the more valuable it becomes to the West. According to Brok, the West must "do everything possible to keep Ankara on board."
Brok and other members of the European Parliament envision making so-called "privileged partner" status palatable to Turkey. It would enable Turkey to have a similar relationship to the EU as Norway does today and to enjoy many of the benefits of EU membership, including access to the European single market, visa-free travel, police cooperation and joint research programs. But it would not, however, become a member.
Frustrated by European opposition to its EU membership bid, Turkey is looking instead to its eastern and southern neighbors in a bid to flex its regional muscles. But will courting the Arab street actually bring Ankara any benefits?
At the Sütlüce Cultural and Congress Center on the Golden Horn in Istanbul, experts and officials from around the world have come together to talk about water. The thousands attending the event include water experts, presidents and ministers, and they are here to talk about the Euphrates, the Nile and the Tigris, about major dams and about the privatization of entire rivers. One of mankind's future problems is being debated, and it is the Turks who are hosting the event. A coincidence?
Ankara, the Ataturk Mausoleum: Two men pay their respects to the founder of the Turkish republic, one wearing a brown robe with a sheepskin cap, the other wearing a suit. They have many problems in common, chief among them the fact that they are both leaders of states on the brink. The two men are Pakistani Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Turkish President Abdullah Gül, of all people, has brought them together. A coincidence?
In Ankara, US President Barack Obama is addressing the Turkish parliament. He has nothing but good things to say about Ataturk and his political heirs, the government's reforms and Turkey's geopolitical importance -- precisely the sorts of things for which the country, desperate for recognition, has been waiting so long. Ankara, of all places, is the last stop on Obama's first trip abroad as president. This, at least, is no coincidence.
Presidents and militia leaders, diplomats, military chiefs of staff and the heads of intelligence services from the Middle East are choosing the city on the Bosporus as a meeting place, and economic delegations are visiting Turkey. Even Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant, chooses to visit Ankara, because he knows that he will not get a lecture there.
The Turks, who always used to complain to their Western allies about their rough neighborhood, apparently no longer have any enemies in the east. Turkey's old rival Russia has since become its most important energy and trading partner. Syria and Iraq, two countries with which Ankara has in the past been on the brink of war, are now friends of Turkey, and relations are even improving with Armenia. The Arabs, who never truly took to the successors of the Ottomans, now look with admiration to what they call the "Turkish model," a dynamic, open country that has a better handle on its problems than they do. But what caused the transformation?
Europe is to blame. When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan assumed office in 2003, he planned to lead Turkey into the European Union. But Europe was unmoved by this vision, and it has also lost much of its appeal within Turkey. According to Germany's Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think tank linked to the center-left Social Democratic Party, as the Europeans have become weary of expansion, Turkey has lost interest in joining the EU. Indeed, what Erdogan meant when he spoke of Turkey's "alternative" to becoming an EU member is becoming increasingly clear.
Critics and supporters alike describe this new course as "neo-Ottomanism." Ankara remains formally committed to its European ambitions. However, frustrated by the open rejection with which it has long been met in Paris, Vienna and Berlin, and which it has been facing once again during the EU election campaign, Turkey is focusing increasingly on its role as a peacekeeping power in a region it either ruled or dominated for centuries.
Turkey's change of course raises fundamental questions for Europe. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for Turkey to be looking more to the south and east than to the west these days? Does this shift speak in favor of or against the eternal EU candidate? And wouldn't the reorientation of Turkish foreign policy be a welcome excuse to conveniently bury the unpopular project of Turkish EU membership for good?
The architect of Turkey's new foreign policy, Ahmet Davutoglu, 50, would certainly disagree. Davutoglu is a short man with a moustache who is a professor of political science and, since the beginning of May, the country's new foreign minister. He has not yet broken with the West: Only recently, he told his counterparts in Brussels that his country would be "not a burden but a boon for Europe."
But Davutoglu, the author of the remarkable book "Stratejik Derinlik" ("Strategic Depth"), in which he discusses "multidimensional policy" at length, follows a different compass than his predecessors, most of whom were the sons of civil servants from Ankara and western Turkey, drilled in Kemalist ideology and focused entirely on Nato, Europe and the United States.
Davutoglu, like President Gül, is from Central Anatolia and a member of a new elite influenced by Islamic thought. He completed his secondary-school education at a German overseas school, learned Arabic and taught at an Islamic university in Malaysia. He believes that a one-sided Western orientation is unhealthy for a country like Turkey.
Davutoglu is convinced that Ankara must be on good terms with all its neighbors, and it cannot fear contact with the countries and organizations branded as pariahs by the West, namely Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. He believes that Turkey should have no qualms about acknowledging its Ottoman past -- in other words, it should become a respected regional power throughout the territory once ruled by the Ottoman Empire (see graphic).
The Turkish press touts Davutoglu as "Turkey's Kissinger," and even Erdogan and Gül refer to him as "hoca" ("venerable teacher"). The country's foreign policy increasingly bears his signature. For example, at his suggestion, Turkish diplomats revived talks between Syria and Israel that had been discontinued in 2000, leading to secret peace talks that began in Istanbul in 2004. However, the talks were temporarily suspended in late 2008 because of parliamentary elections in Israel and the Gaza offensive.
The Turks say that they achieved more during the Gaza conflict than Middle East veterans like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, arguing that Hamas's willingness to accept Israel's ceasefire offer was attributable to Ankara's intervention. They also say that the fact that Erdogan angrily broke off a discussion with Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Summit in Davos cemented his reputation in the Islamic world as a friend of the Palestinians. When street fighting erupted in Lebanon between supporters of the pro-Western government and of Hezbollah in May 2008, Erdogan intervened as a mediator.
Ankara is also seeking to reduce tensions in the Caucasus region, where the Turks have often acted against Russia, prompting Moscow to accuse Turkey of being sympathetic to the Chechen cause. After the war in Georgia last summer, the Erdogan government brought together officials from Tbilisi and Moscow. Turkey and Armenia are now seeking to overcome long-standing hostility by establishing diplomatic relations and reopening their shared border.
Off the Horn of Africa, the US Fifth Fleet turned over the leadership of Combined Task Force 151, which is responsible for combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, to the Turkish navy. At the same time, a man paid an official visit to Ankara who had not appeared in public since 2007: Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, the head of the notorious Mahdi Army militia. Davutoglu had sent a private jet to bring him to Turkey from his exile in Iran.
Compared with the cool treatment Turkey gave its southern and eastern neighbors for decades, this is a stunning about-face. But not everyone approves. Critics like political scientist Soner Cagaptay describe Ankara's foreign policy as "pro-Arab Islamist." In a recent op-ed for the Turkish daily Hurriyet, Cagaptay argued that Turkish diplomats, who had once "looked to Europe, particularly France, for political inspiration" have now fallen for the Arab world, and generally for Islamists -- in other words, for Hamas instead of secular Fatah, or Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood instead of the government in Cairo. "However, being popular on the Arab street is not necessarily an asset for Turkey, since in autocracies popularity on the street does not translate into soft power in the capitals," Cagaptay argues.
Diplomats like Hakki Akil, the Turkish ambassador in Abu Dhabi, disagree. According to Akil, Turkey has acquired "soft power" by expanding its sphere of influence from the Balkans to Afghanistan, transporting Russian, Caspian Sea and Iranian oil and gas to the West, and building housing and airports in Kurdish northern Iraq. Europe, says Akil, ought to be pleased with Ankara's course. As Akil's boss Davutoglu said in Brussels, political stability, a secure energy corridor and a strong partner on its southeastern flank are all "in the fundamental interest of the EU."
In truth, everyone involved knows that Turkey doesn't stand a chance of becoming a full member of the European club in the foreseeable future -- and probably never will. Of course, no one in Brussels is willing or able to admit this. The EU stands by the accession negotiations without limitations, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso repeats on a regular basis.
But these very negotiations are hardly moving forward. According to a recent internal European Commission report, Turkey has made "only limited progress." Some EU countries have already abandoned the idea of accepting Turkey into their midst. In Bavaria, conservative Christian Social Union campaigners promote a message of "No to Turkey" as they make the rounds of beer tents. At a televised campaign appearance in Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy made their opposition to EU membership for Turkey clear.
Ironically, Turkey's strategic importance for Europe "is even greater today than in the days of the Cold War," says Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament for the conservative Christian Democratic Union who specializes in foreign policy issues. And then there is the paradox of the fact that the more intensively Turkey, out of frustration with Europe, engages with its eastern neighbors, the more valuable it becomes to the West. According to Brok, the West must "do everything possible to keep Ankara on board."
Brok and other members of the European Parliament envision making so-called "privileged partner" status palatable to Turkey. It would enable Turkey to have a similar relationship to the EU as Norway does today and to enjoy many of the benefits of EU membership, including access to the European single market, visa-free travel, police cooperation and joint research programs. But it would not, however, become a member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)