Obama the Visionary: End Nukes, admit Turkey to EU
Barack Obama continues to shake up the world with his new ideas, demonstrating himself again among the more creative and bold leaders the world has seen in the past half-century. In Prague on Sunday, he called for the US to lead a drive to abolish nuclear weapons:
' The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that had existed for centuries would have ceased to exist. Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered in a global nonproliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point when the center cannot hold. . . Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st. And as a nuclear power -as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon - the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.'
What he says about the continued threat of nuclear arsenals, and about the dangers of proliferation and use in terrorism, is all true. But while commentators say these things all the time, seldom do politicians dare be so frank and so decisive. I believe that only in retrospect will historians come to see the true, pivotal significance of Obama's epochal speech. More from the LAT
.
This is a step I called for in my new book, "Engaging the Muslim World," so I'm especially pleased to see President Obama delineating this policy goal so early in his administration. The speech does not refer to the Middle East, but it has potentially big implications for that region. The logical conclusion is that Obama not only wants Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program (which may not now be aimed at making a bomb, but could one day be used for that purpose), but he also wants Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal of 150 warheads. Since Israel's stockpile provokes the Middle Eastern arms race, which in turn contributed to the outbreak of the Iraq War, were the Middle East to become a nuclear-free zone, it would become a less dangerous place.
On Sunday Obama also called on the European Union to admit Turkey.
Reuters reports Obama's comments:
' "The United States and Europe must approach Muslims as our friends, neighbors and partners in fighting injustice, intolerance and violence, forging a relationship based on mutual respect and mutual interests. Moving forward toward Turkish membership in the EU would be an important signal of your (EU) commitment to this agenda and ensure that we continue to anchor Turkey firmly in Europe."
French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel oppose Obama on this issue, while Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi backed Obama's suggestion for Turkey. Ironically, the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, which is slightly tinged with political Islam, is among the Turkish political forces most committed to membership in Europe. Because the elite in Turkey has typically been militantly secular and somewhat authoritarian, repressing religion and especially religion in politics, some devotees of political Islam in that country feel they might benefit from European Union human rights laws.
The intrepid Roger Cohen gets an interview with Turkish PM Tayyip Recep Erdogan, who sees Obama as possibly playing a synthetic role between the Christian and Muslim worlds, as exemplified in his full name:
“I consider personally the election of Barack Hussein Obama to have very great symbolic meaning. A Muslim and a Christian name — so in his name there is a synthesis, although people from time to time want to overlook that and they do it intentionally. Barack Hussein Obama . . . Your targets can only be realized on the basis of dreams . . . If everyone can say, looking at Obama, that is he is one of us, is that not befitting for the leading country in the world?”
Aljazeera English reports on the mixed reception of Barack Obama in Turkey. The Turkish left protested US imperialism and rejected membership in NATO. Others see Obama as figure of wisdom and even put him on the same level as Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic.
End/ (Not Continued)

|
Facebook




17 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered in a global nonproliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point when the center cannot hold.
This matters to all people, everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city - be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague - could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences may be - for our global safety, security, society, economy, and ultimately our survival.
It is important to note the timescale Obama is referring to. He says elsewhere "Maybe not in his lifetime"
It may be important to read between the lines and wonder which nuclear armed country is causing the most worry. I wonder if there is a contingency plan to use the US troops in Afghanistan to remove the Pakistani arsenal.
I wonder what the effect of this might be. Would the Indians then invade the part of Kashmir they do not already control?
Let us then watch the way pressure on Pakistan is ratcheted up over the coming months
What remains unsaid is of course the existence of the other methods of mass destruction and events. Chemical Biological and Information effects.
In his Prague speech Obama accused Iran of "potentially" starting a "nuclear arms race in the region", ignoring the fact that only the first nuclear power in a region can (potentially) start one. But in Obama's world Israel can have nuclear bombs without potentially starting a nuclear arms race in the region. Only Iran seems to have that capacity in his eyes.
The rethoric about a nuclear free world is fine, but at the same time Obama announced that he would continue building a "missile defence shield" in Eastern Europe. To the Russians building such a shield cannot be considered as anything but a hostile act (the argument that such a shield at such a location is aimed at Iran instead of Russia is clearly absurd, and of course the Russians don't buy it). So this announcement is actually, to describe it in Obama-speak, a ''down payment" for future confrontation with Russia. Nuclear disarmament and missiles shields in Europe are almost mutually exclusive. Again: lofty words, together with dangerous policies: Obama in a nutshell.
Dear Professor Cole
he also wants Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal of 150 warheads. Since Israel's stockpile provokes the Middle Eastern arms race, which in turn contributed to the outbreak of the Iraq War, were the Middle East to become a nuclear-free zone, it would become a less dangerous place.
The UK Foreign Secretary Milliband mentioned that a nuclear weapon free Middle East is UK Government policy.
Given the lockstep between UK and US this would seem to confirm your supposition.
I would dearly love to be a fly on the wall when this is explained to Avigdor Lieberman.
Who are these "terrorists" seeking to build an A-bomb - Iran and the Taliban? Judging from his suggestion that non-proliferation had failed, and unless he plans to do away with the ABM program in Europe (without which move any talk of disarmament is empty), this is actually more talk about Iranian nukes.
Listening to Obama, one can only conclude that Israel will be cut right down to its real size in the new world order.
The Israelis, and their "agents" in Congress, consider themselves the center of the Universe and the Rice-like deluded Livni used to make urgent visits to Moscow and Peking to issue her instructions about how they should behave in the ME and the world in general!
Clinton is stuck in the middle, and it will be interesting to see when, or even whether, she does the necessary switch.
Saw you speak at Villanova on Friday - great job, my wife and I enjoyed the speech.
My only critique of Obama's speech is that he talks about "fighting... violence", which seems a bit like doublespeak to me.
I was definitely impressed by his anti proliferation stance.
President Obama's proposing that the E.U. admit Turkey is neither bold nor new. It's arrogant. Condoleeza Rice and George Bush were the last American politicians to propose it. It is as if European leaders proposed opening America's border with Mexico, Haiti and Cuba. In Obama's case, it was especially tone-deaf because it was so blatently an attempt to sooth Turkish feelings after forcing Anders Fogh Rasmussen on them for Nato Secretary General, and to pave the way for a successful trip to Turkey. In Europe, people are more interested in Sarkhozy's tart reply to Obama than they are in the North Korean Missle launch.
Europeans in general aren't opposed to Turkey's membership because it's Muslim, After all, we have Turkish friends, shop in Turkish stores and vacation in Turkey. Our electorate is 5-10% Muslim, and a good portion of these are Turkish immigrants that are by and large well integrated. Turkey is just too big and too poor. It will take 30-40 years to bring the 10 nations that were admitted 5 years ago to European standards. Berlescuoni has always supported Turkish membership, as has many right-wing politicians in England. They want more cheap labor to help them bust European unions.
"The logical conclusion is that Obama not only wants Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program (which may not now be aimed at making a bomb, but could one day be used for that purpose), but he also wants Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal of 150 warheads."
That Obama wishes Israel to give up nuclear arms is absurd. Obama never mentioned Israel and only threatened Iran, as usual. Somehow Obama's threats are never heard, we only project what we wish to Obama's words.
This seems like a beautiful end run around an Israel that won't admit it has nukes but implicitly threatens their use. It's hard for me to see a nuclear weapons free world as more sinister than a bomb filled world.
The juxtaposition of Obama's call for a world without nuclear weapons without mentioning Israel, Pakistan, or the Middle East, against his statements about North Korea's missile launch are interesting. A nuclear weapons free world could permit no exceptions.
The idea that terrorists who supposedly crave a nuke would certainly deliver and detonate it is neither a useful nor likely assumption. Delivery is of course a big problem, though not insoluble. Even if delivery was accomplished, it seems to me that it would be much more beneficial for the sender to simply announce it was in place and ready to go, and hold the target hostage. Holding a million people, or six or ten million people, or a primary religious location, or a country's economy hostage--that's much more practical for achieving one's aims than simply punching the button and then trying to figure out what to do next and where to hide. We haven't yet seen a city held as a nuclear hostage (possibly over a long period of time) but the passage of time in a nuclear world makes this more, not less, likely.
However, the probability that someone may eventually detonate a nuclear bomb on a highly populated or symbolic target likewise increases over time in a nuke equipped world. Few people don't worry that a single nuclear detonation might spiral upward to a planetary conflagration. Perhaps that unfortunate day where a well know city is evaporated will see a different reaction, one that doesn't involve lots of button pushing, one that most of the world in fact demonstrated on Sept 11: a great sadness, empathy, and a renewed resolve that we really need to call this stupidity to a halt.
"The intrepid Roger Cohen gets an interview with Turkish PM Tayyip Recep Erdogan, who sees Obama as possibly playing a synthetic role between the Christian and Muslim worlds, as exemplified in his full name:"
The Turkish PM speaks like an adult, as does the British PM and the US president. Perhaps our friends in Israel will emulate this behavior.
A nuclear free world, which includes a nuclear free Israel, is the only way catastrophe can be avoided as resource depletion begins to take a toll in human lives.
Israel's nukes cannot deter famine any more than they can deter flooding.
Obama's proposals will make it possible for Israel to continue to exist, but only if Israel's leaders mature beyond the perpetual, terrible twos.
Obama always sounds wonderful. He says the right things. But, I always seem to look for the specifics of what he's going to do. And, as usual, they aren't there.
Here's some specifics that to me could have easily been added to this speech.
-- The Bush administration was always pushing for money to build a next generation of nuclear weapons. Obama could have made the pledge in this speech that he would not fund this effort while he was President.
-- As far as I know, our existing nuclear weapons are still targeted on other countries. And still on such an alert status that they can be launched in minutes. Obama could have announced the 'de-targeting' of these weapons. The world would be safer, and is there anyone we really expect to nuke us in the next 15 min?
-- Since the US has such a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, couldn't Obama have announced a uni-lateral disarmament move to start the path towards the world he envisions.
I read an Obama speech, and it always sounds good. And I'm always just sitting there waiting for the ACTIONS to follow up on the words. But the actions are always missing.
And we learned in the campaign, Obama's vague rhetoric really means he'll let Wall St run the economy and he'll let the Republicans and the generals keep running the wars.
Since I love the vision he's laid out, I hate to say it, but my guess is that at the end of the day the Air Force generals and the Navy Admirals will get whatever they want, and these fine words will be forgotten except for bloggers who pull them up a couple of years from now and ask 'but what happened to ...'
Yes,considering he bombed Pakistan,I can't exactly take his word on this.
It would be wonderful to roll the clock back - to make nuclear weapons disappear. Would we then start on tanks, automatic weapons, submarines, and eventually work around to cross bows?
Even if we did NOT have nuclear weapons, we can never rest assured that NO ONE has them. We will always wonder if maybe China or our buddies the Russians, or someone has them - and might use one. Would we accept a few million dead Americans, a September 11th attack with an actual nuclear weapon and no way to retaliate?
And if we did manage to assure that no one had nuclear weapons - the country with the largest population (they also tend to be much more tolerant of losses than America) would suddenly be in charge. Would we slug it out with China, trading one for one, over Taiwan? Japan? Would we slug it out with Brazil over Panama?
The threat of nuclear retaliation keeps us from having to offer up hundreds of thousands of Americans on the altar of freedom. Those wonderful people that wish that nuclear weapons did not exist are the same ones that would protest a huge draft to defend America.
As much as I wish they did not exist, the genie is out of the bottle. Viruses (real and computer) will follow mankind forever. We deal with our situation.
nuclear military-industrial complex: can we please re-learn the Clinton/Blair lessons? Words are just words...
see here for a second opinion
Conservative parties (Merkel, Sarkozy) are against Turkey membership supposedly for reasons of cultural and religious chauvinism.
Center-left parties are afraid of Turkish workers taking jobs in the EU. Sometimes they are afraid of Turkey as a US Trojan horse...
Isn't this all secondary? In the end of the day, do any of them really want to admit the Elephant in the room (civil war against the Kurds in the nineties, clandestinely supported) into the EU?
Who the EU wants to admit in the alliance is absolutely not the buzziness of America, whoever its president is, Bush or Obama. When will the US finally get it that the rest of the world don't need their imperialism.
Sorry to come late on this, but I was away from home and catching back
Interesting commentary about the EU, particularly in light of the recent European push to imprint economic policy in the U.S. The current global financial recession proves that the U.S. marketplace, and free access to it, is the most valuable asset in the global community. That fact gives the U.S. a place in policy making in Europe. Further, I think the fact that the U.S. essentially freed Europe from centuries of perpetual war and conflict should lead psuedo-intellectuals in Europe to at least consider our positive impact on humanity.
At a minimum, Christiane, we can teach you grammar.
As for Obama, even the U.S. deserves a mulligan sometimes.
Israel's nukes cannot deter famine any more than they can deter flooding.
Post a Comment
<< Home