Turkish Forum English

Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

Russia-Georgia Conflict Puts Turkey in Vulnerable Position

The Russia-Georgia conflict has put Turkey in a tight spot. Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia which also shares a Black Sea coast with Turkey? As Dorian Jones reports from Istanbul, ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the north.

By Dorian Jones
Istanbul

The U.S. Navy coast guard cutter Dallas passes through Bosporus Strait, Istanbul, Turkey, 24 Aug 2008

Turkey has been playing the role of mediator between various parties in the region: the United States and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan. But as more U.S. warships pass through the narrow Turkish-controlled strait into the Black Sea to deliver aid to Georgia, a time for choosing sides may have arrived.

Last weekend, U.S. warships used the Turkish straits to deliver aid to Georgia. A Russian official condemned the move and warned Turkey it was obliged to enforce the rules of an agreement that gives a 21 day limit on any warship from a country that does not border the Black Sea.

The Turkish government is responsible for policing the 32-kilometer Bosporus, the only route for ships traveling to the Black Sea, under the Montreux agreement of 1936. The Bosporus provides sole access for ships to Georgia’s Black Sea ports.

International relations expert Soli Ozel of Istanbul’s Bilgi University said this has put Turkey in a precarious position.

“Turkey is a NATO member and is also a neighbor of Georgia’s and great supporter of Georgia both economically and militarily,” he said. “And Turkey controls the passage from and to the Black Sea. Therefore whatever happens next Turkey is going to find itself impacted by the developments.”

Also at stake is Turkey’s trade relations with Russia. Turkey’s trades more goods with Russia than any other country, mostly because of Turkey’s dependence on Russian gas.

“We have very good economic relations with Russia,” said Ozel. “Our trade is over $10 billion and we are overly dependent on Russian gas at 64 percent and 40 percent for Russia oil.”

Turkey has been trying to boost trade with Moscow as it struggles with a current account deficit that’s growing as energy costs soar.

But Russia has introduced new custom regulations which, according to the Turkish trade minister Kursad Tuzmen, could cost Turkey as much as $3 billion. Tuzmen attacked the regulations as political, saying Moscow may be punishing it for allowing the U.S. ships to pass through the Bosporus.

Tuzman said that on September 1 Turkey will impose curbs on Russian exports and withdraw support for its membership of the World Trade Organization.

But a Turkish diplomatic source said that Ankara is determined not to be drawn into the conflict. Much of the Turkish media is also calling for a neutral stance.

With the Turkish prime minister visiting Moscow and Tbilisi, Ankara is now working hard to secure peace. Soli Ozel doesn’t believe such efforts have much chance of success, but still thinks they are important.

“For the moment I see it as an empty shell and as a good will gesture. If anything comes out of it will be good, and if nothing comes out of it no one will blame Turkey,” said Ozel. “It is better than what the Europeans can and would do anyway.”

This weekend Georgia’s foreign minister, Eka Tkeshelashvili, is due to visit Turkey, while his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, is expected next week. While few people give little chance of any breakthrough, experts say the real motive behind such efforts is for Turkey to balance its relations between Russia and the West. But with another U.S. warship headed to the Black Sea this weekend, those efforts are predicted to get increasingly difficult.

Source : Voice of America

August 31, 2008
TURKEY’S DELICATE ACT OF BALANCING IN THE BLACK SEA

EURASIA DAILY MONITOR, THE JAMESTWON FOUNDATION
August 27, 2008, Volume 5, Issue 164
Saban KardasThe aftershocks of the conflict in Georgia continue to dominate regional politics, highlighting the difficulties Turkey encounters in conducting its foreign policy in dangerous neighborhoods.

The latest U.S. move to utilize military vessels to provide humanitarian aid to the war-torn areas of Georgia demonstrated starkly how Turkey has been forced to engage in a delicate act of balancing to preserve its interests. By maintaining strict adherence to the 1936 Montreux Convention regulating the rules of transit through Turkish straits, Turkey had a powerful legal backing for its cautious policy of balancing the demands of its long-term ally, the United States, and its increasingly assertive neighbor, Russia. Turkish policy experts, however, believe that an escalation of tensions, forcing Turkey to choose sides, is quite likely. Moreover, Turkey should be prepared to discuss the revision of Montreux, which it has jealously guarded.

The U.S. State Department announced on August 20 that the United States obtained Turkey’s approval for the passage of two U.S. Navy destroyers and one Coast Guard cutter to the Black Sea, which would transport humanitarian aid, subject to Montreux regulations. The week preceding this announcement was full of speculation concerning U.S. demands from Turkey for the passage of larger ships, to which Turkey responded negatively because their tonnage well exceeded the limitations set by Montreux. Despite denials by both parties of any pending negotiations, it was later understood that the American side dropped its original plan for sending two large military hospital ships and agreed for smaller ships in compliance with Montreux terms. Moreover, although Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said the United States wanted to use military cargo ships (Zaman, August 21), the shipment was eventually made by destroyers. The episode led many to draw parallels with the notorious March 1, 2003, decision of the Turkish Parliament, indicating a crisis between the two allies. News reports claimed that U.S. pressed for requests in violation of Montreux provisions, and that American officials criticized Turkey’s “irresponsible” resistance to such simple demands. In Turkey, opposition parties called on the government not to bow to these pressures nor deviate from Montreux Convention (Referans, August 20).

The ability to reach a compromise without escalating this situation was a significant reflection of the maturity of both parties. It was, nonetheless, unclear whether the United States fully complied with the Montreux, which requires an eight-day advance notification from non-littoral countries before sending their warships through the Straits. Since U.S. and Turkish officials denied such a request until August 19, the State Department’s announcement of ‘Turkey’s approval’ on August 20 seemed dubious (Radikal, August 21). As a matter of fact, Montreux does not require the same condition for humanitarian aid, which is, however, subject to different tonnage limitations. Given that the supplies are carried with military vessels, the controversy still remains. The Deputy Chair of Republican People’s Party, Onur Oymen, who is a retired senior diplomat, initiated a parliamentary inquiry asking Foreign Minister Ali Babacan to clarify exactly what provisions of the Montreux applied to these ships (ANKA, August 22). The Prime Minister Erdogan slammed the opposition and the media for their ignorance but did not address these criticisms (Anatolian Agency, August 23).

The U.S.S. destroyer McFaul eventually arrived at Batumi port on August 24, carrying the first shipment of humanitarian relief supplies. The implications of this development for Turkey remain a matter of contention. Russian diplomats in Ankara seem to be pleased with Turkey’s sensitivity in enforcing compliance with Montreux and are keen on preserving the status quo (Murat Yetkin, Radikal, August 26). However, they question the authenticity of U.S. claims for providing humanitarian aid, and believe that it will increase tensions and undermine the stability. If the intention was genuine, the U.S. should not have insisted on carrying aid by military ships; civilian vessels or other transportation means would have served the same purpose (Radikal, August 23). The same argument is shared by many Turkish analysts who increasingly view American policy as a mere show of strength in the Black Sea as part of a growing confrontation, or a new ‘Cold War’ of sorts (for instance: Fikret Bila, Milliyet, August 24; also see reference to Onur Oymen).

Further increasing Turkish observers’ skepticism, coincidentally, Spanish, German and Polish warships also transited the Straits around the same time. The Turkish Foreign Ministry clarified the situation by announcing that they were part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 and their activities were scheduled for transit through the Straits in October 2007. They will be visiting ports in NATO members Bulgaria and Romania (August 22, www.mfa.gov.tr). Nonetheless, many see the two developments intertwined and believe that the escalation between the United States and Russia already started. Moscow’s decision to recognize the independence of the two breakaway regions of Georgia and Medvedev’s announcement of severing ties with NATO are viewed as reactions to U.S. policies (Zaman, August 26). Strategist Sinan Ogan drew attention to increased risks generated by the presence of NATO warships in the Black Sea: an accidental exchange between U.S. and Russian ships may spark a fight between the two powers, destabilizing the whole region. Fearing that the U.S. expression of support through this move may lead Georgia to act more belligerently, and underlining that Turkey is the only neutral country bordering the Black Sea, he calls on Ankara to maintain its neutral position and avoid confrontation with Russia (Zaman, August 27). Sharing similar concerns, the opposition RPP invited the PM to report to Parliament as to who assumed the political responsibility for the risks involved in this decision (ANKA, August 23).

Although the United States did not express any intention of pressing for a revision to the terms of Montreux, Turkish analysts increasingly see such a forthcoming possibility. Veteran commentators maintain their commitment to preserving the Montreux in its current form, both as the best guarantee of Turkey’s sovereignty over the Straits and as a geopolitical asset (Hasan Celal Guzel, Radikal, August 26). Nonetheless, Turkish analysts sense a persistent U.S. determination to revise the Montreux regime (Oktay Eksi, Hurriyet, August 22). A senior expert from Ankara-based think-tank ASAM, Hasan Kanbolat sparked a discussion on the subject. He argues that given drastic changes in naval technology, U.S. strategy to establish a presence in the Black Sea, and Romania and Bulgaria’s decision to join NATO, Ankara should be prepared to receive such demands from the United States to amend the Montreux in the foreseeable future (www.avsam.org.tr, August 20). Mensur Akgun, however, believes that such a demand is more likely to come from Black Sea littoral states, other than Russia. As these countries increasingly have adopted pro-Western policies and drifted away from Russia, they tend to view the Montreux regime as the major barrier before their security (Referans, August 23). As signatories to the convention, they may initiate such a process. Overall, despite many of its shortcomings, especially regarding the rules concerning commercial vessels, Turkey so far has avoided opening an international debate on Montreux because it is viewed as the optimal arrangement to protect its interests. Turkey remains committed to resisting any changes being made to any of the loopholes, as it has demonstrated in this episode.

Given its flourishing economic relations with Russia and its dependence on Russian gas, Turkey so far has avoided taking any steps in this crisis that will sever its relations with Russia and provoke further Russian aggression in the region. Accordingly, it acted with caution and followed a restrained policy vis-à-vis American demands, acting in concert with European powers. To its credit, the United States also showed restraint in its demands on Turkey and respected Ankara’s sensibilities to the Montreux Convention. As veteran analyst Sami Kohen argues, however, “the new developments in the Georgia crisis will probably challenge Turkish diplomacy and make balancing increasingly difficult” (Milliyet, August 21).

August 29, 2008
Rizelli Cafe brings Istanbul to Brookline

Inquisitive foodies have been wondering what happened to Huseyin Akgun, chef/owner of the popular Istanbul Cafe. In 2003, the restaurant moved from its original Beacon Hill location to larger digs in Brighton. But when that venture closed two years later, Akgun’s whereabouts were unknown.Last summer, Akgun quietly opened Rizelli Cafe in Brookline Village. The menu isn’t as extensive as its predecessor and too many menu items are unavailable. But one bite of mucver or Adana kebab and you’ll break into a smile – yes, Akgun’s cooking is as good as ever.

Read the full story…

August 29, 2008
The Montreux Convention and energy — outdated or essential?

By JOHN C.K. DALY
UPI International Correspondent

Published: Aug. 27, 2008 at 4:57 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 (UPI) — The five-day military conflict between Russia and Georgia over the disputed enclave of South Ossetia has thrown into the spotlight a nearly forgotten 72-year-old treaty governing the passage of both merchantmen and warships between the Mediterranean and Black seas through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, collectively known as the Turkish Straits.

The 1936 Montreux Convention roiled relations between Washington, which wanted to send humanitarian aid on massive vessels through the Turkish Straits, and Ankara, which has steadfastly insisted on the terms of the treaty being respected. The incident is a reminder, if any is needed, that despite Turkey and the United States being close allies and NATO compatriots, the two nations’ strategic interests do not always run in tandem. While America and its NATO allies attempt to cram as many warships as legally allowed up the Turkish Straits, thoughtful analysts should remember that the passage is also a conduit for massive tankers of up to 200,000 tons or more. In 2006, tankers carrying more than 140 million tons of Azeri, Kazakh and Russian oil used the Turkish Straits. Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance with the Kremlin over South Ossetia could have a direct impact on these oil shipments, something that hawks both inside the Beltway and the Kremlin should consider.

The Turkish Straits consist of two waterways connected by the landlocked Sea of Marmara. The 17-mile-long Bosporus, which debouches into the Black Sea, bisects Istanbul with its 11 million inhabitants, and its sinuous passage is only a half-mile wide at its narrowest point at Kandilli and has a convoluted morphological structure that requires ships to change course at least 12 times, including four separate bends that require turns greater than 45 degrees. At its southern end the Bosporus empties into the Sea of Marmara, which in turn connects to the 38-mile-long Dardanelles. Under good conditions merchant vessels currently canpass the 200 miles of the Turkish Straits in about 16 hours.

Under Montreux, Turkish sovereignty is recognized over the entire channel, but while the agreement guarantees merchantmen unhindered passage, the passage of warships of non-Black Sea nations is tightly regulated, which has led to the current friction between Washington and Ankara. Disputes over the waterway date back to the dawn of European history. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey recount the struggles of the Trojan War, which is assumed to have occurred in the 13th or 12th century B.C.; modern archaeology has placed Troy at the entrance to the Dardanelles.

The Turkish Straits now carry 50,000 vessels annually, making the passage the world’s second-busiest maritime strait, whose volume of traffic is exceeded only by the Straits of Malacca, and the only channel transiting a major city. The development of the former Soviet Caspian states’ energy riches has led to an explosion of tanker traffic through the Turkish Straits; in 1996, 4,248 tankers passed the Bosporus; a decade later 10,154 tankers made the voyage, a development that Ankara, worried about a possible environmental catastrophe, views with growing concern as the Turkish Straits have become a tanker superhighway. The tankers transport Russian, Kazakh and, until the 2006 opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Azeri crude to increasingly ravenous foreign markets.

Under the terms of Montreux, Turkey cannot even charge tankers transit fees or require them to take on pilots to traverse the treacherous waterway.

Montreux is quite explicit on the passage of foreign warships through the Turkish Straits, however, limiting non-riverain Black Sea forces to a maximum of 45,000 tons of naval vessels, with no single warship exceeding 30,000 tons.

Washington originally proposed to send to Georgia two U.S. Navy hospital ships, the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, but both are converted oil tankers displacing 69,360 tons apiece, and the Turks demurred.

Four ships belonging to the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 — Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski and the USS Taylor — last week passed into the Black Sea to Romania’s Constanza and Bulgaria’s Varna ports to participate in a NATO maritime exercise scheduled in October 2007 to conduct joint operations with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. The Bulgarian navy currently has one Koni-class, one Wielingen-class and three Riga-class frigates, one Tarantul and two Pauk-class corvettes, three Osa-class missile boats and a Romeo-class submarine, while Romania has three frigates, four light frigates, three Molniya-class corvettes, three torpedo boats, one minelayer, four minesweepers and 16 auxiliary ships. In contrast, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has 40 warships; its flagship is the guided missile cruiser Moskva. According to the Russian General Staff, these soon will be joined by an additional eight NATO warships, even as the Moskva dropped anchor in Abkhazian waters.

The Pentagon finally got its chance to fly the flag when on Aug. 22 the USS McFaul (DDG-74, 8,915 tons) guided-missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian aid passed the Bosporus headed for Georgia with supplies such as blankets, hygiene kits and baby food, to be followed two days later by the USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716, 3,250 tons) cutter passing the Dardanelles, which eventually will be joined by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20, 18,400 tons), now loading supplies in Italy.

The Kremlin is not pleased by the foreign show of naval force; Russian General Staff Deputy Chief Anatoly Nogovitsyn observed of the NATO exercise, “From the Russian point of view … the usefulness of this operation is extremely dubious,” later labeling the deployment “devilish.”

The Turkish press is now full of speculation that Washington will pressure Turkey to revise Montreux, but is it really in America’s and its allies’ interests to be provocatively flying the flag in waters through which pass a number of tankers fueling European and Asian needs? As Turkey is allowed under Montreux to shut the Turkish Straits completely in the event of conflict, it is a question to which hawks in Europe and Washington ought to give more consideration.

August 28, 2008
Geopolitical Diary: How Far Will the Caucasus Conflict Go?

Stratfor.com
August 28, 2008

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev flew to
Tajikistan on Wednesday for a summit with China
and four Central Asian countries. The countries
are members of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, which meets regularly. This meeting
had been on the schedule for while and has no
significance, save that it brings the Russians
into contact with four former members of the
Soviet Union and as important China.

Each of the Central Asian countries is obviously
trying to measure Russia’s long-term intentions.
The issue will not be Georgia, but what Georgia
means to them. In other words, how far does
Russia intend to go in reasserting its sphere of
influence? Medvedev will give suitable
reassurances, but the Russian empire and Soviet
Union both conquered this area in the past.
Retaking it is possible. That means that the four
Central Asian countries will be trying very hard
to retain their independence without irritating
the Russians. For them, this will be a careful meeting.

Of greater interest to the world is China’s view
of the situation. Again, China has no interest in
Georgia. It does have to have quiet delight over
a confrontation between the United States and the
Russians. The more these two countries are
worried about each other, the less either and
particularly the United States can worry about
the Chinese. For China, a U.S.-Islamic
confrontation coupled with a U.S.-Russian
confrontation is just what the doctor ordered.
Certainly the least problem Washington will have
is whether the yuan floats and, hoping for
cooperation with China, the United States will
pull its punches on other issues. That means that
the Chinese will express sympathy to all parties
and take part in nothing. There is no current
threat to Central Asia, so they have no problems
with the Russians. If one emerges, they can talk.

In the meantime, in the main crisis, Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called attention to
the Black Sea as a potential flash point in the
confrontation between Russia and the West. He
warned that there could be direct confrontations
between Russian and NATO ships should NATO or its
member nations increase their presence there.
According to NATO there are currently four NATO
ships in the Black Sea for a previously scheduled
exercise called Active Endeavor. Putin explicitly
warned, however, that there could be additional
vessels belonging to NATO countries in the Black
Sea that are not under NATO command.

It is hard to get ships into the Black Sea
unnoticed. The ships have to pass through the
Bosporus, a fairly narrow strait in Turkey, and
it is possible to sit in cafes watching the ships
sail by. Putting a task force into the Black Sea,
even at night, would be noticed, and the Russians
would certainly know the ships are there.

As a complicating factor, there is the Montreaux
Convention, a treaty that limits access to the
Black Sea by warships. The deputy chief of the
Russian general staff very carefully invoked the
Montreaux Convention, pointing out that Turkey,
the controlling country, must be notified 15 days
in advance of any transit of the Bosporus, that
warships can’t remain in the Black Sea for more
than 21 days and that only a limited number of
warships were permitted there at any one time.
The Russians have been reaching out in multiple
diplomatic channels to the Turks to make sure
that they are prepared to play their role in
upholding the convention. The Turkish position on
the current crisis is not clear, but becoming
crucial; both the United States and Russia are
working on Turkey, which is not a position Turkey
cares to be in at the moment. Turkey wants this crisis to go away.

It is not going away. With the Russians holding
position in Georgia, it is now clear that the
West will not easily back down. The Russians
certainly aren’t going to back down. The next
move is NATO’s, but the alliance is incapable of
moving, since there is no consensus. Therefore,
the next move is for Washington to lead another
coalition of the willing. It is coming down to a
simple question. Does the United States have the
appetite for another military confrontation
(short of war, we would think) in which case it
will use its remaining asset, the U.S. Navy, to
sail into the Black Sea? If it does this, will it
stay awhile and then leave or establish a
permanent presence (ignoring the Montreaux
Convention) in support of Ukraine and Georgia,
with its only real military option being
blockade? If this happens, will the Russians live
with it, will they increase their own naval, air
and land based anti-ship missile capabilities in
the region, or will they increase pr essure
elsewhere, in Ukraine or the Baltics?

In short, how far does this go?

August 28, 2008
Obama Wins Nomination; Biden and Bill Clinton Rally Party

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

Senator Barack Obama joined Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. on stage on Wednesday. More Photos >

DENVER — Barack Hussein Obama, a freshman senator who defeated the first family of Democratic Party politics with a call for a fundamentally new course in politics, was nominated by his party today to be the 44th president of the United States.

Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

Slide Show

Working the Convention Crowds

Related

Man in the News: A Consistent Yet Elusive Nominee (August 28, 2008)

News Analysis: For Obama, a Challenge to Clarify His Message (August 27, 2008)

Clinton Rallies Her Troops to Fight for Obama (August 27, 2008)

The unanimous vote made Mr. Obama the first African-American to become a major party nominee for president. It brought to an end an often-bitter, two-year political struggle for the nomination with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, standing on a packed convention floor electric with anticipation, moved to halt the roll call in progress so that the convention could nominate Mr. Obama by acclamation. That it did with a succession of loud roars, followed by a swirl of dancing, embracing, high-fiving and chants of “Yes, we can.”

In an effort to fully close out the lingering animosity from the primary season, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech that had been anxiously awaited by Mr. Obama’s aides given the prickly relations between the two men, offered an enthusiastic and unstinting endorsement of Mr. Obama’s credentials to be president. His message, like the messenger, was greeted rapturously in the hall.

Mr. Clinton asserted, as Mrs. Clinton had when she spoke to the convention on Tuesday night, that the nation needed to elect a Democrat to restore the damage he said President Bush had done to the country, at home and around the world.

“Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world.” Mr. Clinton said. “Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States.”

Mr. Clinton was followed by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s choice for vice president, who used his speech to set out the Democratic case against the Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.

“Our country is less secure and more isolated than in any time in recent history,” Mr. Biden said. “The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a few deep holes with very few friends to help us climb out.”

“These times require more than a good soldier,” Mr. Biden said. They require a wise leader.”

In an address that was at turns personal, emotional and barbed, he said, “Today the American dream is slipping away.”

“John McCain doesn’t seem to get it,” Mr. Biden said. Barack Obama gets it.

To the delight of the crowd, at the conclusion of his address Mr. Biden was joined on stage by Mr. Obama, who made a point to thank Mr. Clinton — with whom he has had a prickly relationship — for his leadership as president. The historic nature of the moment quickly gave way to the political imperatives confronting Mr. Obama, who arrived here in the afternoon and is to accept the nomination Thursday night before a crowd of 75,000 people in a football stadium. After days in which the convention often seemed less about Mr. Obama than about the two families that have dominated Democratic politics for nearly a half-century, the Kennedys and the Clintons, he still faced a need to convince voters that he has concrete solutions to their economic anxieties and to rally his party against the reinvigorated candidacy of Mr. McCain.

The roll-call vote took place in the late afternoon — the first time in at least 50 years that Democrats have not scheduled their roll call on prime-time television — as Democrats sought to avoid drawing attention to the lingering resentments between Clinton and Obama delegates. Yet the historic nature of the vote escaped no one, and sent a charge through the Pepsi Center as a procession of state delegations cast their votes and the hall, slightly empty at the beginning of the vote, became shoulder-to-shoulder with Democrats eager to witness this moment.

As planned, it fell to Mrs. Clinton to put Mr. Obama over the top. He was declared the party’s nominee at 4:47 p.m. Mountain Time after Mrs. Clinton, in a light blue suit standing out in a crowd that included almost every elected New York official, moved that the roll call be suspended and that Mr. Obama by declared the party’s nominee by acclamation. The vote was timed to conclude during the network evening news broadcasts.

“With eyes firmly fixed on the future in the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and country, let’s declare together in one voice, right here and right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States,” she said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, standing at the lectern, asked for a second and was greeted by a roar of voices. A louder roar came from the crowd when she asked for support of the motion.

When the voting was cut off, Mr. Obama had received 1,549 votes, compared with 231 for Mrs. Clinton.

The hall pulsed when Mr. Clinton strode onto the stage for a performance that became a reminder of why Democrats had considered him a politician with once in a generation skills. There were no signs that screamed “Clinton,” but Democrats waved American flags in quick tempo to welcome him to the stage. Again and again, Mr. Clinton tried to quiet the crowd; they ignored him.

Skip to next paragraph

“You all sit down: We’ve got to get on with the show!” he said as the applause lingered on for more than three minutes and his wife watched from the floor.

Without mentioning Mr. McCain by name, he offered a sharp denunciation of him and Republicans as he made the case for Mr. Obama.

“The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam,” he said, “He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American Dream and how to restore America’s leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years.”

“They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more,” he said. “Let’s send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.”

For Mr. Obama, the nomination — seized from Mrs. Clinton, who just one year ago was viewed as the obvious favorite to win the nomination especially against an opponent with a scant political resume — was a remarkable achievement in what has been a remarkable ascendance. It was less than four years ago that Mr. Obama, coming off of serving seven years as an Illinois state senator, became a member of the United States Senate. He is 47 years old, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya.

Mr. Obama’s nomination came 120 years after Frederick Douglass became the first African-American to have his name entered in nomination at a major party convention. Douglass received one vote at the Republican convention in Chicago in 1888; Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana went on to win the White House that year.

Making the moment even more striking was the historical nature of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. She was the third woman whose name has been entered as a candidate for president at a major party convention. As she moved to end the roll-call vote, some women in the hall could be seen wiping tears from their eyes.

The presidential candidate is typically an absent figure during the first few days of a convention. In this case, Mr. Obama’s vacuum was filled by the Clintons and the tribute paid to the party to Mr. Kennedy on Monday night. What has taken place over the past two days might have politically necessary and even helpful, but it did not go far in helping Mr. Obama achieve some of the critical goals of this convention.

As a result, he is under considerable pressure Thursday night to use this speech in an ambitious setting, a football stadium, to present a fuller picture of himself, Americans who might have doubts about whether he is ready to be president, and begin presenting a picture of what he would do in the White House. For Mr. Obama, the final appearance is not the coda to a convention; in many ways, it may prove to be his entire convention.

Mr. Obama, who arrived in Denver just after 3 p.m., was at his hotel in downtown Denver with his wife and daughters when he learned that he had been nominated by acclamation.

Kitty Bennett, John Broder and Janet Elder contributed reporting.

August 28, 2008