Turkish Forum

Tag: Barack Obama

  • Obama to Lift Cuba Travel Restrictions

    Obama to Lift Cuba Travel Restrictions

    obama1
    President Obama will announce today that he is lifting travel restrictions that block Cuban Americans from traveling to Cuba and will relax the rules governing what items can be sent to the island, a senior White House official said. The decision does not lift the trade embargo on communist Cuba but eases the prohibitions that have restricted Cuban Americans from visiting their relatives and has limited what they can send back home.

    Obama Lifts Some Restrictions on Cuba

    PH2009041301325
    A man rides his bicycle along the Malecon in Havana on April 9, 2009. (Javier Galeano/Associated Press)

    Updated 5:55 p.m.
    By Michael D. Shear
    President Obama is lifting some restrictions on Cuban Americans’ contact with Cuba and allowing U.S. telecom companies to operate there, opening up the communist island nation to more cellular and satellite service, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced at his regular news briefing today.

    The decision does not lift the trade embargo on Cuba but eases the prohibitions that have restricted Cuban Americans from visiting their relatives and has limited what they can send back home.

    It also allows companies to establish fiber-optic and satellite links between the United States and Cuba and will permit U.S. companies to be licensed for roaming agreements in Cuba.

    Communications of those kinds have been prohibited under tough rules put in place by George W. Bush’s administration to pressure for democratic change in the island nation.

    But under the new policy promoted by Obama, satellite radio companies and television providers will also be able to enter into transactions necessary to provide service to Cuban citizens.

    It will also provide an exception to the trade embargo to allow personal cell phones, computes and satellite receivers to be sent to Cuba.

    “All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects the basic human, political and economic rights of all of its citizens,” Gibbs said. “President Obama believes the measure he has taken today, will help make that goal a reality.”

    As a candidate, Obama promised to seek closer relations with Cuba, and courted Cuban voters in the key state of Florida. As president, he has signaled that he intends to move toward a greater openness.

    Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, praised the move. “President Obama has made the right call. . . ,” he said in a statement this afternoon. “These changes are both compassionate and responsive to reality.”

    A White House aide said the president believes that democratic change will come to the Cuban nation more quickly if the United States reaches out to the people of Cuba and their relatives in the United States.

    But the move is highly controversial, especially among those who supported Bush’s hardline policy and view the restrictions as a way of spurring political change.

    The news drew quick criticism from Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and his brother, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who called it a “serious mistake.” In a statement posted online, they said, “Unilateral concessions to the dictatorship embolden it to further isolate, imprison and brutalize pro-democracy activists, to continue to dictate which Cubans and Cuban-Americans are able to enter the island, and this unilateral concession provides the dictatorship with critical financial support.”

    Obama’s administration takes a somewhat different view than the Bush administration, but has resisted a wholesale elimination of the trade embargo and travel ban, which has been pushed for by some in Congress.

    The announcement comes as the president prepares to leave Thursday for the Summit of the America’s in Trinidad, and a stop in Mexico.

  • ‘Genocide’ Is A Matter Of Opinion

    ‘Genocide’ Is A Matter Of Opinion

    Column by Scott Simon

    Simon Says

    by Scott Simon

    Weekend Edition Saturday, April 11, 2009 · When President Obama was beginning his run for office, he said he believed the 1915 slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey was not war but genocide and that the American people deserved “a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides.”

    But when Obama addressed the Turkish parliament this week, he referred only to “the terrible events of 1915.”

    I was part of a PBS program called The Armenian Genocide. There was no question mark in the title. I think there are times when you have to say “genocide” to be accurate about mass murder that tries to extinguish a whole group. That’s why slaughter of a million Tutsis in Rwanda is not called merely mass murder. An American politician who got to Germany, for example, and called the Holocaust of European Jews merely “killings” would be mocked.

    I don’t doubt that Obama is still outraged by the Armenian genocide. But when he ran in the presidential primaries, it was important to win support from people concerned about human rights and, perhaps, Armenian-Americans in California.

    Now, Obama may feel that it is more important for the United States to win Turkey’s cooperation on a range of issues than it is for him to be consistent on a controversy that may seem like old history.

    But it’s not. Almost every year, the Turkish government has charged reporters and writers, including the Nobel laureate, Orhan Pamuk, for “insulting national identity” by referring to the massacres of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide.

    Peter Balakian, the pre-eminent scholar of the genocide and co-translator of a new, widely lauded family memoir called Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, told us this week that he admires President Obama for telling Turkish leaders that confronting the past and restoring good relations with Armenia is important.

    But he believes Turkey’s campaign against acknowledging its genocide raises questions about reliability.

    Balakian told us, “A country that spends millions of dollars a year in an effort stop the facts about the Armenian genocide from being known and that persecutes and prosecutes its own citizens for speaking truthfully about the extermination of the Armenians is hardly a government to trust to broker honest and just foreign policy.”

    In a way, the president’s choice to say “killings” in front of his hosts may remind us that it might be wise to regard what any politician says as the words of a suitor who coos “I love you” during courtship. They mean it in the moment. But any adult should know that they may not mean it in just a few weeks.

  • ANCA NEWS: OBAMA MISSES OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE PLEDGE

    ANCA NEWS: OBAMA MISSES OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE PLEDGE

    top banner

    BREAKING NEWS: HAWAII MAKES 42
    House of Representatives in President Obama’s Home State
    Unanimously Recognizes Armenian Genocide     >> Read more. . .
    OBAMA MISSES OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE PLEDGE

    WATCH VIDEO of President Obama discussing Armenian issues in Turkey
    WASHINGTON, DC – Armenian National Committee of America Executive Director Aram Hamparian issued the following statement following President Obama’s remarks before
    the Turkish Parliament.
    “In his remarks today in Ankara, President
    Obama missed a valuable opportunity to
    honor his public pledge to recognize the
    Armenian Genocide.”
    “The President’s willingness to raise his commitment to recognizing the Armenian Genocide, even indirectly, in his remarks before the Turkish Parliament represents a step in the right direction, but far short of the clear promise he made as a candidate that he would, as President, fully and unequivocally recognize this crime against humanity. We expect that the President will, during Genocide Prevention Month this April, stand by his word, signaling to the world that America’s commitment to the cause of genocide prevention will never again be held hostage to pressures from a foreign government.”
    Obama In Turkey: Read all about it. . .
    Wall Street Journal:     Time to Recognize the Armenian Genocide by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
    Slate.com:     Telling the Truth About the Armenian Genocide by Christopher Hitchens
    New York Times:     Obama Says U.S. Not at War With Islam by Hellene Cooper
    ABC News Blogs:     Candidate Obama, President Obama, and the Armenian Genocide by Jake Tapper
    LA Times:     Obama Avoids Saying “Genocide” While in Turkey by Christi Parsons & Laura King
    The Miami Herald:     Obama Facing Diplomatic Test in Turkey by Steven Thomma
    ForeignPolicy.com:     Left Behind by Laura Rozen
    The Hill:     Obama Avoids the Word Genocide before Turkish Hosts by Bridget Johnson
    The Washington Times:     Diplomats Foresee Turkey, Armenia pact by Nicholas Birch
  • Obama’s Strategy and the Summits

    Obama’s Strategy and the Summits

    Dr. George Friedman
    Chairman, STRATFOR

    The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

    Berlin, Washington and the G-20

    Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

    Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand – Germany was not going to cooperate.

    The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

    Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans – including Germany – declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

    Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague – as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime – and with the vague U.S. assent – the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

    Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions – such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan – the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

    The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

    The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that “consensus.”

    Turkey and Obama’s Deeper Game

    But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

    During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

    So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

    The Russian Dimension

    Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies – a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

    The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American – a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

    At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

    The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

    Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

    From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

    The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey – which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans – is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

    Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

    This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated – if not laid it on even more heavily – all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

    The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

    Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey – and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

    00000000000000000

    Dr. George Friedman
    Chairman, STRATFOR    George Friedman, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized expert in security and intelligence issues relating to national security, information warfare and computer security. He is founder,  chairman and Chief Intelligence Officer of STRATFOR, (Strategic Forecasting Inc.) a private intelligence company that provides customized intelligence services for its clients and provides an internationally acclaimed Web site, www.stratfor.com, that analyzes and forecasts trends in world affairs. Friedman’s column, Intelligence Brief, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services.
    Friedman is the author of many publications in international affairs and business intelligence, including the books, “The Intelligence Edge: How to Profit in the Information Age” (The Crown Publishing Group, 1997) and “The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the 21st Century” (The Crown Publishing Group, 1997), an examination of the impact of new military technologies on the international system. He is presently at work on a new book, “America’s Secret War”, to be published by Doubleday in the Fall of 2004.Friedman has appeared as a national security and intelligence expert on all major television networks, including CNN’s “Moneyline” and ABC’s “This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.” He is frequently a guest on National Public Radio and has been featured in numerous publications, including Time, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Magazine. In October 2001, Friedman was featured in a cover story interview in Barron’s. He also has been the keynote speaker at many security and industry-specific conferences for private organizations and government agencies.Friedman graduated with a B.A. from the City College of the City University of New York and holds a Ph.D. in Government from Cornell University. Prior to entering the private sector in 1996, Friedman was a professor of political science for almost 20 years and was an early designer of computerized war games. During his years in academics, Friedman briefed widely on security and national defense matters, including senior commanders in all armed services, the Office of Net Assessments, SHAPE Technical Center, the U.S. Army War College, National Defense University and the RAND Corporation. In 1994 Friedman founded the Center for Geopolitical Studies at Louisiana State University, which engages in integrated economic, political and military modeling and forecasting and was the only non-DOD/non-governmental organization granted access to Joint Theater Level Simulation (JTLS) by the Joint Warfighting Center.Friedman is married with four children (two in the military) and currently lives in Austin, Texas.
  • Transcript Obama Holds a Town Hall in Istanbul

    Transcript Obama Holds a Town Hall in Istanbul

    CQ Transcripts Wire
    Tuesday, April 7, 2009; 8:57 AM

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you so much. Well, it is a great pleasure to be here. Let me begin by thanking Professor Rahmi Aksungur — did I say that properly — who is director of the university here. And I want to thank all the young people who’ve gathered together. This is a great privilege for me and I’m really looking forward to it. I’m going to make a few remarks at the beginning and then I want to spend most of the time having an exchange and giving you an opportunity to ask — ask questions of me and I may ask some questions of you.

    So as I said yesterday, I came to Turkey on my first trip overseas as President for a reason, and it’s not just to see the beautiful sights here in Istanbul. I came here to reaffirm the importance of Turkey and the importance of the partnership between our two countries. I came here out of my respect to Turkey’s democracy and culture and my belief that Turkey plays a critically important role in the region and in the world. And I came to Turkey because I’m deeply committed to rebuilding a relationship between the United States and the people of the Muslim world — one that’s grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect.

    Turkey and the United States have a long history of partnership and cooperation. Exchanges between our two peoples go back over 150 years. We’ve been NATO allies for more than five decades. We have deep ties in trade and education, in science and research. And America is proud to have many men and women of Turkish origin who have made our country a more dynamic and a more successful place. So Turkish- American relations rest on a strong foundation.

    That said, I know there have been some difficulties in recent years. In some ways, that foundation has been weakening. We’ve had some specific differences over policy, but we’ve also at times lost the sense that both of our countries are in this together — that we have shared interests and shared values and that we can have a partnership that serves our common hopes and common dreams.

    So I came here to renew that foundation and to build on it. I enjoyed visiting your parliament. I’ve had productive discussions with your President and your Prime Minister. But I also always like to take some time to talk to people directly, especially young people. So in the next few minutes I want to focus on three areas in which I think we can make some progress: advancing dialogue between our two countries, but also advancing dialogue between the United States and the Muslim world; extending opportunity in education and in social welfare; and then also reaching out to young people as our best hope for peaceful, prosperous futures in both Turkey and in the United States.

    Now, let me just talk briefly about those three points.

    First, I believe we can have a dialogue that’s open, honest, vibrant, and grounded in respect. And I want you to know that I’m personally committed to a new chapter of American engagement. We can’t afford to talk past one another, to focus only on our differences, or to let the walls of mistrust go up around us.

    Instead we have to listen carefully to each other. We have to focus on places where we can find common ground and respect each other’s views, even when we disagree. And if we do so I believe we can bridge some of our differences and divisions that we’ve had in the past. A part of that process involves giving you a better sense of America. I know that the stereotypes of the United States are out there, and I know that many of them are informed not by direct exchange or dialogue, but by television shows and movies and misinformation. Sometimes it suggests that America has become selfish and crass, or that we don’t care about the world beyond us. And I’m here to tell you that that’s not the country that I know and it’s not the country that I love.

    America, like every other nation, has made mistakes and has its flaws. But for more than two centuries we have strived at great cost and sacrifice to form a more perfect union, to seek with other nations a more hopeful world. We remain committed to a greater good, and we have citizens in countless countries who are serving in wonderful capacities as doctors and as agricultural specialists, people — teachers — people who are committed to making the world a better place.

    We’re also a country of different backgrounds and races and religions that have come together around a set of shared ideals. And we are still a place where anybody has a chance to make it if they try. If that wasn’t true, then somebody named Barack Hussein Obama would not be elected President of the United States of America. That’s the America I want you to know.

    Second, I believe that we can forge a partnership with Turkey and across the Muslim world on behalf of greater opportunity. This trip began for me in London at the G-20, and one of the issues we discussed there was how to help peoples and countries who, through no fault of their own, are being very hard hit by the current world economic crisis. We took some important steps to extend a hand to emerging markets and developing countries by setting aside over a trillion dollars to the International Monetary Fund and by making historic investments in food security.

    But there’s also a larger issue of how Turkey and America can help those who have been left behind in this new global economy. All of our countries have poverty within it. All of it — all of our countries have young people who aren’t obtaining the opportunities that they need to get the education that they need. And that’s not just true here in Turkey or in the United States, but that’s true around the world. And so we should be working together to figure out how we can help people live out their dreams.

    Here there’s great potential for the United States to work with Muslims around the world on behalf of a more prosperous future. And I want to pursue a new partnership on behalf of basic priorities: What can we do to help more children get a good education? What can we do to expand health care to regions that are on the margins of global society? What steps can we take in terms of trade and investment to create new jobs and industries and ultimately advance prosperity for all of us? To me, these are the true tests of whether we are leaving a world that is better and more hopeful than the one we found.

    Finally, I want to say how much I’m counting on young people to help shape a more peaceful and prosperous future. Already, this generation, your generation, has come of age in a world that’s been marked by change that’s both dramatic and difficult. While you are empowered through unprecedented access to information and invention, you’re also confronted with big challenges — a global economy in transition, climate change, extremism, old conflicts but new weapons. These are all issues that you have to deal with as young people both in Turkey and around the world.

    In America, I’m proud to see a new spirit of activism and responsibility take root. I’ve seen it in the young Americans who are choosing to teach in our schools or volunteer abroad. I saw it in my own presidential campaign where young people provided the energy and the idealism that made effort possible. And I’ve seen it wherever I travel abroad and speak to groups like this. Everywhere I go I find young people who are passionate, engaged, and deeply informed about the world around them.

    So as President, I’d like to find new ways to connect young Americans to young people all around the world, by supporting opportunities to learn new languages, and serve and study, welcoming students from other countries to our shores. That’s always been a critical part of how America engages the world. That’s how my father, who was from Kenya, from Africa, came to the United States and eventually met my mother. It’s how Robert College was founded so long ago here in Istanbul.

    Simple exchanges can break down walls between us, for when people come together and speak to one another and share a common experience, then their common humanity is revealed. We are reminded that we’re joined together by our pursuit of a life that’s productive and purposeful, and when that happens mistrust begins to fade and our smaller differences no longer overshadow the things that we share. And that’s where progress begins.

    So to all of you, I want you to know that the world will be what you make of it. You can choose to build new bridges instead of building new walls. You can choose to put aside longstanding divisions in pursuit of lasting peace. You can choose to advance a prosperity that is shared by all people and not just the wealthy few. And I want you to know that in these endeavors, you will find a partner and a supporter and a friend in the United States of America.

    So I very much appreciate all of you joining me here today. And now what I’d like to do is take some questions. I think we’ve got — do we have some microphones in the audience? So what I’d like to do is people can just raise their hands and I’ll choose each person — if you could stand up and introduce yourself. I have a little microphone in my pocket here in case you’re speaking Turkish, because my Turkish is not so good — (laughter) — and I’ll have a translator for me.

    OK? All right. And I want to make sure that we end before the call to prayer, so we have about — it looks like we have about half an hour. All right? OK, we’ll start right here.

    QUESTION: I’m from the university. I want to ask some questions about climate issue. Yesterday you said that peace in home and peace in world, but to my opinion, firstly the peace should be in nature. For this reason, I wonder that when the USA will sign the Kyoto Protocol.

    OBAMA: Well, it’s an excellent question. Is this mike working? It is? OK. Thank you very much. What was your name?

    QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

    OBAMA: As many of you know, I think the science tells us that the planet is getting warmer because of carbon gases that are being sent into the atmosphere. And if we do not take steps soon to deal with it, then you could see an increase of three, four, five degrees, which would have a devastating effect — the oceans would rise; we don’t know what would happen to the beauty of Istanbul if suddenly the seas rise. Changing weather patterns would create extraordinary drought in some regions, floods in others. It could have a devastating effect on human civilization. So we’ve got to take steps to deal with this.

    When the Kyoto Protocol was put forward, the United States opted out of it, as did China and some other countries — and I think that was a mistake, particularly because the United States and — is the biggest carbon — has been the biggest carbon producer. China is now becoming the biggest carbon producer because its population is so large. And so we need to bring an international agreement together very soon.

    It doesn’t make sense for the United States to sign Kyoto because Kyoto is about to end. So instead what my administration is doing is preparing for the next round, which is — there will be discussions in Copenhagen at the end of this year. And what we want to do is to prepare an agenda both in the United States and work internationally so that we can start making progress on these issues.

    Now, there are a number of elements. Number one, we have to be more energy efficient. And so all countries around the world should be sharing technology and information about how we can reduce the usage of electricity, and how we can make our transportation more efficient, make our cars get better gas mileage. Reducing the amount of energy we use is absolutely critical.

    We should also think about are there ways that if we’re using fossil fuels — oil, coal, other fossil fuels — are there ways of capturing or reducing the carbon emissions that come from them?

    So this is going to be a big, big project and a very difficult one and a very costly one. And I don’t want to — I don’t want to lie to you: I think the politics of this in every country is going to be difficult, because if you suddenly say to people, you have to change your factory to make it more energy efficient — well, that costs the factory owner money. If you say to a power plant, you have to produce energy in a different way, and that costs them money, then they want to pass that cost on to consumers, which means everybody’s electricity prices go up — and that is something that is not very popular.

    So there are going to be big political struggles in every country to try to ratify an agreement on these issues. And that’s why it’s going to be so important that young people like yourself who will be suffering the consequences if we don’t do something, that you are active politically in making sure that politicians in every country are responsive to these issues and that we educate the public more than we have so far.

    But it is excellent question, thank you.

    All right, this gentleman right here.

    QUESTION: Thank you. I’m studying at Bahcesehir University, and my major is energy engineering, so…

    OBAMA: Oh, there you go. You could have given an even better answer.

    QUESTION: Yes, I hope we will solve that problem in the future. So my question is, what actions will you take after you wrote quote, peace at home, peace at the world, to do…

    OBAMA: I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?

    QUESTION: What actions will you take after you wrote your quote, peace at home and peace at the world, to — (inaudible) — and what do you think, as Turkish young men and women, how can we help you at this purpose you have?

    OBAMA: Well, some people say that maybe I’m being too idealistic. I made a speech in Prague about reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and some people said, ah, that will never happen. And some people have said, why are you discussing the Middle East when it’s not going to be possible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to come together? Or, why are you reaching out to the Iranians, because the U.S. and Iran can never agree on anything?

    My attitude is, is that all these things are hard. I mean, I’m not naive. If it was easy, it would have already been done. Somebody else would have done it. But if we don’t try, if we don’t reach high, then we won’t make any progress. And I think that there’s a lot of progress that can be made.

    And as I said in my opening remarks, I think the most important thing to start with is dialogue. When you have a chance to meet people from other cultures and other countries, and you listen to them and you find out that, even though you may speak a different language or you may have a different religious faith, it turns out that you care about your family, you have your same hopes about being able to have a career that is useful to the society, you hope that you can raise a family of your own, and that your children will be healthy and have a good education — that all those things that human beings all around the world share are more important than the things that are different.

    And so that is a very important place to start. And that’s where young people can be very helpful, because I think old people, we get into habits and we become suspicious and we carry grudges. Right? You know, it was interesting when I met with President Medvedev of Russia and we actually had a very good dialogue, and we were — we spoke about the fact that although both of us were born during the Cold War, we came of age after the Cold War had already begun to decline, which means we have a slightly different attitude than somebody who was seeing Russia only as the Soviet Union — only as an enemy or who saw America only as an enemy.

    So young people, they can get rid of some of the old baggage and the old suspicions, and I think that’s very important. But understanding alone is not enough. Then you — we actually have to do the work.

    And for the United States, I think that means that we have to make sure that our actions are responsible, so on international issues like climate change we have to take leadership. If we’re producing a lot of pollution that’s causing global warming, then we have to step forward and say, here’s what we’re willing to do, and then ask countries like China to join us.

    If we want to say to Iran, don’t develop nuclear weapons because if you develop them then everybody in the region is going to want them and you’ll have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and that will be dangerous for everybody — if we want to say that to Iranians, it helps if we are also saying, “and we will reduce our own,” so that we have more moral authority in those claims.

    If we want to communicate to countries that we sincerely care about the well-being of their people, then we have to make sure that our aid programs and our assistance programs are meaningful.

    So words are good and understanding is good, but ultimately it has to translate into concrete actions. And it takes time. I was just talking to my press team and they were amused because some of my reporter friends from the States were asking, how come you didn’t solve everything on this trip? They said, well, you know, it’s only been a week. These things take time and the idea is that you lay the groundwork and slowly, over time, if you make small efforts, they can add up into big efforts. And that’s, I think, the approach that we want to take in promoting more peace and prosperity around the world.

    OK, let me make sure I get all sides of the room here. This young lady right here.

    QUESTION: In one of your interviews you said you want us to be a member of the European Union. But after that, Nicolas Sarkozy said, it’s not yours, it’s European Union decision. Now I want to ask you that what’s your opinion, and why Nicolas Sarkozy said that? Is that because he’s more likely to support the so-called Armenian genocide?

    OBAMA: You know, the — I don’t think — well, first of all, it’s true, I’m not a member of — the United States is not a member of the European Union, so it’s not our decision to make. But that doesn’t prevent me from having an opinion. I mean, I notice the Europeans have had a lot of opinions about U.S. policy for a long time, right? They haven’t been shy about giving us suggestions about what we should be doing, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with us reciprocating. That’s what friends do — we try to be honest about what we think is the right approach. I think it is the right approach to have Turkey join the European Union. I think if Turkey can be a member of NATO and send its troops to help protect and support its allies, and its young men are put in harm’s way, well, I don’t know why you should also not be able to sell apricots to Europe, or have more freedom in terms of travel.

    So I think it’s the right thing to do. I also think it would send a strong signal that Europe is not monolithic but is diverse and that that is a source of strength instead of weakness. So that’s my opinion.

    Now, President Sarkozy is a good friend and a good ally. As I said, friends are going to sometimes disagree on this. I haven’t had a lengthy conversation with him about his position on this issue. My hope is, is that as time goes on and as trust builds, that this is ultimately something that occurs.

    I don’t get a sense that his opposition is related to the Armenian issue. I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s a more fundamental issue of whether he’s confident about Turkey’s ability to integrate fully. But you’ll probably have to ask him directly. So maybe when he comes here he’ll have a town hall meeting like this one.

    OK, the gentleman right there. Yes, go ahead. Here’s a microphone.

    QUESTION: First, I will ask about the Bush and you differences at the core, because some say just the face has changed and that — but core is the same still. They will have a fight with the Middle East and they will have a fight with Iran.

    And my second question is more in part to this. You will let the Kurdish state in northern Iraq? You will let — you’ll allow this?

    OBAMA: OK, the…

    QUESTION: Thank you.

    OBAMA: Yes. Well, let me answer — I’ll answer the Kurdish question first. You know, we are very clear about our position on Turkish territorial integrity. Turkey is an ally of ours and part of what NATO allies do is to protect the territorial integrity of their allies. And so we are — we would be opposed to anything that would start cutting off parts of Turkey, and we have been very supportive in efforts to reduce terrorist activity by the PKK.

    Now, I also think that it’s important that the Kurdish minority inside of Turkey is free to advance in the society and that they have equal opportunity, that they have free political expression, that they are not suppressed in terms of opportunity. And I think that the President and Prime Minister are committed to that, but I want to continually encourage allowing — whether it’s religious minorities or ethnic minorities — to be full parts of the society. And that, I think, is very, very important.

    The first question, if I understood you correctly, is the suggestion that even though I present a different face from Bush, that the policies are the same and so there’s really not much difference.

    And, you know, I think this will be tested in time because as I said before, moving the ship of state is a slow process. States are like big tankers, they’re not like speedboats. You can’t just whip them around and go in a new direction. Instead you’ve got to slowly move it and then eventually you end up in a very different place.

    So let me just give you a few examples. When it comes to Iraq, I opposed the war in Iraq. I thought it was a bad idea. Now that we’re there, I have a responsibility to make sure that as we bring troops out, that we do so in a careful enough way that we don’t see a complete collapse into violence. So some people might say, wait, I thought you were opposed to the war, why don’t you just get them all out right away? Well, just because I was opposed at the outset it doesn’t mean that I don’t have now responsibilities to make sure that we do things in a responsible fashion.

    When it comes to climate change, George Bush didn’t believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change, I think it’s important. That doesn’t mean that suddenly the day I’m elected I can say, OK, we’re going to turn off all the lights and everybody is going to stop driving. Right? All I can do is to start moving policies that over time are going to obtain different results.

    And then it is true, though, that there are some areas where I agree with many of my friends in the United States who are on the opposite political party. For example, I agree that Al Qaida is an enormous threat not just to the United States but to the world. I have no sympathy and I have no patience for people who would go around blowing up innocent people for a political cause. I don’t believe in that.

    So, yes, I think that it is just and right for the United States and NATO allies and other allies from around the world to do what we can to eliminate the threat of Al Qaida. Now, I think it’s important that we don’t just do that militarily. I think it’s important that we provide educational opportunities for young people in Pakistan and Afghanistan so that they see a different path. And so my policies will be somewhat different, but I don’t make any apologies for continuing the effort to prevent bombs going off or planes going into buildings that would kill innocents. I don’t think any society can justify that.

    And so, as I said, four years from now or eight years from now, you can look back and you can see maybe what he did wasn’t that different, and hopefully you’ll come to the conclusion that what I did made progress.

    Yes, this young lady right here.

    QUESTION: First of all, welcome to our country, Turkey. I would like to continue in Turkish if it’s possible.

    OBAMA: Yes, let me — wait, wait, wait. See, I’ve got my…

    QUESTION: Thank you very much.

    OBAMA: Hold on.

    QUESTION: (As translated.) My first question is that in the event that Turkey becomes an EU member, what — how will that — how is that…

    OBAMA: OK, try again.

    QUESTION: In the event that Turkey becomes a member of the EU, how will that affect U.S. foreign policy and the alliance of civilizations? And my second question is a little more personal. We watched your election with my American friends. Before you were elected, my friends who said that they were ashamed of being Americans, after you were elected said that they were proud to be Americans. This is a very sudden and big change. What do you think the reason is for this change?

    OBAMA: You know, the United States friendship with Turkey doesn’t depend on their EU membership. So even if Turkey continued not to be a member of the EU, the United States in our bilateral relations and in our relations as a NATO ally can really strengthen progress. And I had long discussions with the President and the Prime Minister about a range of areas where we can improve relations, including business and commerce and trade.

    We probably can increase trade between our two countries significantly, but we haven’t really focused on it. Traditionally the focus in Turkish-American relations has been around the military and I think for us to broaden that relationship and those exchanges could be very important.

    You know, in terms of my election, I think that what people felt good about was it affirmed the sense that America is still a land of opportunity. I was not born into wealth. I wasn’t born into fame. I come from a racial minority. My name is very unusual for the United States. And so I think people saw my election as proof, as testimony, that although we are imperfect, our society has continued to improve; that racial discrimination has been reduced; that educational opportunity for all people is something that is still available. And I also think that people were encouraged that somebody like me who has a background of living overseas, who has Muslims in his family — you know, that I might be able to help to build bridges with other parts of the world.

    You know, the American people are a very hopeful people. We’re an optimistic people by nature. We believe that anything is possible if we put our minds to it. And that is one of the qualities of America that I think the world appreciates. You know, sometimes people may think that we are — we aren’t realistic enough about how the world works and we think that we can just remake the world without regard to history, because we’re still a relatively new nation. Compared to Turkey and how old this civilization is, America is still very new.

    And so it’s true that I think we believe that things can happen very fast and that transformations in politics or in economics or in science and technology can make our lives better overnight. So sometimes we need more patience. But I also think the world needs to have a sense — (drop in audio feed). That’s a good thing and that we don’t have to always be stuck with old arguments. I mean, one thing that is interesting about Europe as I travel around is, you know, you hear disputes between countries that date back to a hundred years, a thousand years — people are still made about things that happened a very long time ago.

    And so one thing America may have to offer is an insistence on looking forward and not always looking backwards.

    OK, I only have time for one more question. I’ll give it to this gentleman right here.

    Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait — I’ve got to get my earplug.

    QUESTION: I thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. Right now I am in the Turkish language and literature faculty of this university. How do you assess the Prime Minister’s attitude in Davos? Had you been in the same situation, would you have reacted the same way?

    OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think very highly of your Prime Minister. I’ve had a chance now to talk with him first in London. I had spoken to him on the phone previously, but we had the opportunity to meet in London during the G-20, and then we’ve been obviously having a number of visits while I’ve been here in Turkey.

    And so I think that he is a good man who is very interested in promoting peace in the region and takes great pride I believe in trying to help work through the issues between Israel and its neighbors. And Turkey has a long history of being an ally and a friend of both Israel and its neighbors. And so it can occupy a unique position in trying to resolve some of these differences.

    I wasn’t at Davos so I don’t want to offer an opinion about how he responded and what prompted his reaction. I will say this — that I believe that peace in the Middle East is possible. I think it will be based on two states, side by side: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. I think in order to achieve that, both sides are going to have to make compromises.

    I think we have a sense of what those compromises should be and will be. Now what we need is political will and courage on the part of leadership. And it is not the United States’ role or Turkey’s role to tell people what they have to do, but we can be good friends in encouraging them to move the dialogue forward.

    I have to believe that the mothers of Palestinians and the mothers of Israelis hope the same thing for their children. They want them not to be vulnerable to violence. They don’t want, when their child gets on a bus, to worry that that bus might explode. They don’t want their child to have to suffer indignities because of who they are. And so sometimes I think that if you just put the mothers in charge for a while, that things would get resolved. And it’s that spirit of thinking about the future and not the past that I just talked about earlier that I think could help advance the peace process, because if you look at the situation there, over time I don’t believe it’s sustainable.

    It’s not sustainable for Israel’s security because as populations grow around them, if there is more and more antagonism towards Israel, over time that will make Israel less secure.

    It’s not sustainable for the Palestinians because increasingly their economies are unable to produce the jobs and the goods and the income for people’s basic quality of life.

    So we know that path is a dead end, and we’ve got to move in a new direction. But it’s going to be hard. A lot of mistrust has been built up, a lot of anger, a lot of hatred. And unwinding that hatred requires patience. But it has been done. You know, think about — my Special Envoy to the Middle East is a gentleman named George Mitchell, who was a senator in the United States and then became the Special Envoy for the United States in Northern Ireland. And the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland had been fighting for hundreds of years, and as recently as 20 years ago or 30 years ago, the antagonism, the hatred, was a fierce as any sectarian battle in the world.

    And yet because of persistent, courageous efforts by leaders, a peace accord was arrived at. A government that uses the democratic process was formed. And I had at the White House just a few weeks ago the leader of the Protestants, the leaders of Catholics in the same room, the separatists and the unionists in the same room, as part of a single system. And so that tells me that anything is possible if we’re willing to strive for it.

    But it will depend on young people like you being open to new ideas and new possibilities. And it will require young people like you never to stereotype or assume the worst about other people.

    In the Muslim world, this notion that somehow everything is the fault of the Israelis lacks balance — because there’s two sides to every question. That doesn’t mean that sometimes one side has done something wrong and should not be condemned. But it does mean there’s always two sides to an issue.

    I say the same thing to my Jewish friends, which is you have to see the perspective of the Palestinians. Learning to stand in somebody else’s shoes to see through their eyes, that’s how peace begins. And it’s up to you to make that happen.

    All right. Thank you very much, everybody. I enjoyed it. (Applause.)

    END

  • Surprise Visit to Iraq

    Surprise Visit to Iraq

    By Michael D. Shear

    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Tuesday, April 7, 2009; 10:07 AM

    ISTANBUL, April 7 — President Obama made a surprise visit to Iraq Tuesday afternoon, landing on Air Force One in Baghdad at 4:4map2 p.m. local time after concluding an eight-day overseas tour through Europe.

    The unannounced visit to a war zone was a closely guarded secret that
    was kept from many of the president’s staff and the press corps, which
    had been following him across the globe for the past week.

    It is Obama’s first visit to Iraq since becoming president and comes
    after he fundamentally altered the mission there, launching a 19-month
    drawdown of most combat troops by the summer of 2010.

    As a candidate, Obama had promised to end the war, which will have
    lasted more than 7-and-a-half years by the time most of the troops are
    gone. But as president, he has moved cautiously, saying that he had a
    responsibility as president to safeguard U.S. troops and Iraqis as
    American forces withdrew.

    “So some people might say, ‘Wait, I thought you were opposed to the
    war, why don’t you just get them all out right away?’ ” Obama told
    students at a town hall meeting in Istanbul just before he left for
    Iraq. “Well, just because I was opposed at the outset it doesn’t mean
    that I don’t have now responsibilities to make sure that we do things
    in a responsible fashion.”

    Obama’s last visit to Iraq came during the height of the
    presidential campaign in July. During that trip, which also included a
    visit to Kabul in Afghanistan, then-senator Obama met with senior Iraqi leaders, U.S. officials and military commanders.

    In a news conference in July, Obama rejected criticism from his
    Republican opponent that he was planning to ignore the advice of U.S.
    military leaders.

    “The notion is, is that either I do exactly what my military
    commanders tell me to do or I’m ignoring their advice,” he said at the
    time. “No, I’m factoring in their advice but placing it in this broader
    strategic framework . . . that’s required.”

    Since then, the security in Iraq has largely continued to improve, although six bombs ripped through Baghdad on Monday, killing more than three dozen people in separate incidents.

    In America, the political and military discussion has largely shift
    to Afghanistan, where security has worsened amid a resurgence of the
    Taliban and the al-Qaeda terrorists who U.S. officials say are hiding
    on the border with Pakistan.

    Two weeks ago, Obama announced a broad new policy on the region, saying
    he would send 17,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan, largely
    drawn from the slow decrease in troops expected in Iraq.

    The policy counts on fresh support from America’s European allies to
    provide help in training a new Afghan police force and in building the
    political and social structures that can help change the dynamic in the
    war-torn country.

    Allies this week largely refused to provide additional combat troops for the mission there. But the leaders of France, Germany, Britain and others did offer strong endorsements of a new and more aggressive approach to defeating terrorism in the region.