- Why a Saudi blogger faces a possible death sentence for three tweets
- America's big wealth gap: Is it good, bad, or irrelevant?
- Xi Jinping, future Chinese president, faces test on first White House visit (+video)
- Iran accuses Israel of setting up attacks on its own diplomats
- Valentine's Day: cost of romance rising for flower delivery, 4 other things
- No budget? No problem! The strange politics behind a budgetless America.
The USS Abraham Lincoln transits the Indian Ocean Jan. 18. The aircraft carrier sailed through the Strait of Hormuz and into the Persian Gulf without incident a day after Iran backed away from an earlier threat to take action if an American carrier returned to the strategic waterway. (REUTERS/U.S. Navy/Chief Mass Communication Specialist Eric S. Powell/Handout)
Should the US attack Iran? Monitor Facebook fans speak out.
Tensions with Iran are high – and keep getting higher.
To thwart Tehran’s suspected nuclear program, the United States has tightened sanctions against the country, and now Europe has agreed to end its purchase of Iranian oil.
Iran has met the sanctions with threats: to close the vital Strait of Hormuz – and worse. In fact, Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently ordered the regime’s armed forces to prepare for war. In his State of the Union address, President Obama, who has long urged diplomacy with Iran, asserted that “America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.” Congress cheered.
The views on “what to do with Iran” are heated. We recently published an op-ed from two former US hostages in Iran, L. Bruce Laingen and John Limbert, who give “Five reasons to avoid war with Iran.” Earlier this week we ran a contrasting view from Council on Foreign Relations fellow Matthew Kroenig. He offers “Five reasons to attack Iran.”
Our readers on Facebook had strong and plentiful reactions to the two pieces. We’ve selected and excerpted some of the most compelling comments below.
We asked: Do you agree with the opinion of this commentator? “5 Reasons to attack Iran”
Joel Slentz
"Absolutely not. The only justifiable reason to go to war with Iran is if Iran attacks an ally. If Pakistan (the country that was borderline harboring Osama bin Laden under our noses) is allowed to have nuclear weapons, then why can’t Iran? That’s like telling the US that they can’t have nuclear weapons, but Mexico can. Also, when was the last time Iran invaded the Western hemisphere? Oh wait, that’s right, THEY HAVEN’T. But we have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan – two countries, which by the way, neighbor Iran – so wouldn’t it make sense for Iran to try to deter the US?"
Phil Reed
"A nuclear-armed Iran will learn what every other nuclear-armed state already knows: The weapons themselves are the bluntest of instruments. An Iran with one or even 10 or 20 nuclear missiles cannot credibly threaten nuclear war because it would be, essentially, nuclear suicide; the US, Russia, and China still have overwhelming nuclear superiority over it and will for the forseeable future. As for whether it will increase the rate of proliferation; certainly, but Iran isn’t the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. That would be Israel, followed by Pakistan and Syria."
Mark Farley
"NO! Pre-emptive strikes are usually a bad idea. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it until enough people listen: It’s time for the US to stop going around being the world’s policeman. The US government should continue doing what it’s already doing, namely, working hand-in-hand with her allies to be a single, focused entity in this matter, as well as all other matters of international import."
Coco Smith
"...[B]oth Russia and China have warned us about attacking Iran. China is economically dependent on the United States, but oil dependent on Iran, and unless Saudi Arabia steps in to fill the vacuum, I doubt they will endorse an attack on Iran from the United States. In fact, I think the United States is overreacting as usual, and I’d say the problem here is American “exceptionalism” going head to head with what the author called Iran’s “grossly inflated view of their place in the world”."
Mary Cubillan
“The problem is Iran’s leaders not their civilians or children.”
Chris Kohler
“No, I do not agree completely with the writer. But, the way things appear, I would say that warring on Iran is inevitable.”
A day later we posted this:
Opinion: Five reasons US must avoid war with Iran. Any that you would remove/add to the list?
Sam Kennedy
“Iran is the only country with/without nukes that has openly and repeatedly hinted and threatened that they want to erase the Jews from the map. And people think it’s a good idea for them to have nukes? Then why did the UN put sanctions on them? Gee, a clerical regime of an Islamic republic...engaged in multiple terrorist acts, knowingly supplying, arming, training, funding, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Madi army in Iraq...and now supporting the Assad regime [in Syria]? Maybe that’s the big difference between Iran and other countries with nukes? Oh, and what other muslim countries were [reportedly] directly affiliated with Hitler and the Nazis in WWII? Hmm. Ya you’re right, we should just let them have nukes and mind our own business. Ya.”
Romeo Vanegas
“The US will be poorer since it costs money to...wage wars with other nations and will cause more civil unrest due to the current economic standing in the US.”
Kevin J. O’Conner
“Because it’s a huge waste of human life, money, and a number of other resources.
I would also add that:
Whether the US government likes it or not, Iran is a sovereign nation, and should be able to determine its own policies and courses of action.
The US stance that it can have nuclear weapons but other nations cannot is hypocritical.
The former Soviet block must have hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear weapons; China probably does, too. Not to mention however many Pakistan has. And North Korea. Where is the rush to act militarily against any of these countries? I’m guessing it’s primarily hiding behind the realization that Russia and China probably have enough nukes to take out the US and/or Europe.
Iran with *a* nuclear weapon is a threat to the US? IRAN? Does the US government really think that the Iranian government is *that* competent?”
Add to the dialogue back on our Facebook page.
In this Oct. 22 photo, World War II veteran Melville Swanson pauses for a moment of reflection at the Marine Corps Memorial, also called the Iwo Jima Memorial, in Washington. (Doral Chenoweth III/Columbus Dispatch/AP)
Veterans Day: Monitor Facebook fans sound off
The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in the year 1918 signified the end of World War I.
Since 1919, with the exception of several years in the 1970s, November 11 each year has been set aside as a day to commemorate those who died, as well as those who served.
In 1938, 'Armistice Day' was made into a legal holiday. President Dwight Eisenhower changed the name of the holiday to 'Veterans Day' in 1954.
Millions of Americans are veterans of foreign wars and Monitor Facebook fans had the chance earlier this week to honor friends and family who have worn a service uniform on the social media platform.
Abby Winland Hillman salutes "my grandfather, Emerson P. Krieble, who signed up for WWI when he was only 17, and fought in some of the ugliest battles at the end of that war. Also, my dad, Richard E. Winland, who served in the Korean conflict."
Erika Szivos Wallgren would like to highlight "my husband, who is currently preparing for his fourth deployment to Afghanistan. His leadership, passion and dedication to his job are truly inspiring."
"I'm honoring all those that I served with, all of those that served before me, and those serving currently," says Sean Mitchell.
"I salute all my ancestors who served, including my great-great-great-grandfat her, James Johnson, who stood up for Liberty during the American Revolution and was paid with farmland on the Ayer-Groton(Mass.) town line," replied Silvia Wilson.
Then, there is Monitor Facebook fan Paul S. Gary, who wrote, "Every day is Veterans' Day for me."
How are you honoring the veteran or veterans in your life? Join the conversation on the Monitor's Facebook wall.
Demonstrations erupted again in Bahrain June 3 during the funeral procession for a 63-year-old protester, Salman Isa abo Idreas. (Credit: EFE/Mazen Mahdi/Newscom)
Bahrain protests and Obama's 'drop by' diplomacy
Of all the Middle East protests, Bahrain’s poses the most delicate test for President Obama.
The small kingdom is home to America’s Fifth Fleet and is of particular concern to Sunni-led Saudi Arabia, which regards the majority-Shiite protests in Bahrain as a proxy battle with Iran. Yet the government crackdown has been particularly brutal, even targeting women for torture.
No wonder then that Mr. Obama had to hide his meeting today with the Bahraini crown prince.
The president didn’t have the meeting on the official White House schedule. Yet he was able to “drop by” the office of National Security Advisor Tom Donilon just about the time a meeting began with Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa.
The crown prince is regarded as the lonely reformer in Bahrain’s ruling family, worthy of consulting but not in a visible way that might confuse people that the US condones the crackdown. His great-uncle, Prime Minister Khalifa bin Salman, is the conservative – and brutal – one, defending the country’s minority Sunni elite against the pro-democracy rabble with an iron fist. He might also have the power to boot out the US Naval base.
“Drop by” meetings are often used by presidents to send or receive messages in situations that need delicate diplomacy. The Dalai Lama, for example, gets such treatment, so as not to offend China by holding an official, cameras-clicking meeting.
Prince Salman is a graduate of American University in Washington, and thus may have an appreciation for the human-rights concerns of the US over Bahrain’s violence. Perhaps he might even take back a tough message from Obama that reform must come quickly and an end to violence even more quickly.
A Saudi woman gets out of a car after being given a ride by her driver in Riyadh on May 26. A campaign was launched on Facebook calling for men to beat Saudi women who drive their cars in a planned protest June 17 against the ultra-conservative kingdom's ban on women taking the wheel. (Credit: FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom)
Honk if you support Saudi women drivers
What struck me about watching a YouTube video of Manal al-Sharif driving along in a Saudi city scene is how normal it looked: The modern Arab woman, wearing her hijab and black sunglasses, looking left before she makes a turn, checking her rear-view mirror, but mostly staring straight ahead as she chats with the woman in the passenger seat who is filming her.
But this simple act is utterly un-normal in Saudi Arabia, where women are banned from driving – not because any law forbids it, but because custom and religious clerics say it's a no-no. With no public transport system, this makes getting to work, or getting the kids to school, or running errands more than a chore.
Ms. al-Sharif, who is a divorced mother and a computer-security consultant, was arrested May 22 after posting a video of herself driving. She was finally released 10 days later, but only after promising not to participate in the "Women2Drive" campaign. The campaign urges women to drive en masse in Saudi Arabia on June 17 to protest the entrenched driving ban.
The campaign is promoting itself through Facebook and Twitter, just as the organizers of the Arab Spring did. But will it galvanize support inside the conservative kingdom, which is the most restrictive Islamic government for women in the world? Women there cannot vote, have no property rights, and make up only 5 percent of the work force?
From behind her steering wheel, al-Sharif makes her case for the right to drive. Not all women can afford a hired driver, she says. And what about the morals of the drivers themselves? Hers got in an accident in the first week she hired him. "He used to harass me," she explained. "He'd adjust [the] rear-view mirror to see what I was wearing." This week, a Saudi businesswoman reported being raped at gunpoint by her chauffeur.
In the video, al-Shariff and her passenger talk about other disadvantages to a driveless life: No taxis available at rush hour; drivers shared by so many women that a 10-minute trip to the office takes two hours; having to stand on the street to wave down a driver. "When I stand by the roadside, everybody, good and bad, will look at me. The good and the bad humiliate me because they don’t like the amount of money that I offer," says al-Sharif. But driving herself, she adds, "There is nobody getting in my way and nobody harassing me, because I am in my own car with the doors locked."
Women's rights advocates in Saudi Arabia have written an open letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asking her to publicly support a woman's right to drive, a campaign they describe as the most significant women's rights movement in Saudi Arabia in two decades. "Wikileaks" reveals that US diplomats have made this appeal in private, but to no avail. The group is making a similar appeal to the European Union's top foreign affairs official, Catherine Ashton.
That would be a welcome, supportive step, but perhaps not the "game changing moment" that the letter's authors hope. The June 17 protest is sure to attract stiff opposition inside the kingdom. A counter campaign calls on men to use the cords of their headdresses to whip the women protesters. Not only is there stiff religious opposition to the protest, but many men fear that if women drive, they will take away men's jobs.
What's needed on June 17 is the same as everywhere in the Arab uprising: A massive and ongoing protest. That is what gets the attention of rulers. And in this endeavor, women must bring their male friends and family members who support them.
Actors pretending to be protesters are shown on the set of "You Don't Know Jack" during filming in Pontiac, Mich. The cast and crew were in metro Detroit in 2009 to do scenes for the biopic about Jack Kevorkian, the assisted-suicide advocate who died today. (k12/k12/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
How Kevorkian and assisted suicide fit into America's mixed moral landscape
What's the single most controversial cultural issue in America? According to a Gallup survey conducted last month, it's doctor-assisted suicide, the issue symbolized by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who died today. Nearly half of Americans say it's morally acceptable, while the other half say it's morally wrong.
Gallup examined other issues, too, from gambling and premarital sex to cloning humans and medical testing on animals. It analyzed responses according to political affiliation and age.
When it comes to moral issues, it's no shocker that Democrats and Republicans see things differently. Sixty-five percent of Democrats said out-of-wedlock births are "morally acceptable," while just 35 percent of Republicans agreed. The gap on abortion was even wider: 55 to 18.
What is surprising is the nature of America's generational gap on hot-button social questions. The size of the gap is large but largely expected: Young people are almost always morally more liberal than their parents or grandparents. It's the pattern of the gap that's striking. To see details, click on the chart at left:
If it feels good, do it?
When it comes to pornography, gay/lesbian relations, premarital sex, and gambling, 18-to-34 year-olds are much more likely than older respondents to perceive them as morally acceptable. The gap is particularly high when it comes to polygamy, which nearly 1 in 5 young Americans say is OK. On the flip side, the young frown on medical testing on animals, the death penalty, and use of animal fur for clothing.
So are young adults just more liberal? Not exactly. Their scores for abortion are relatively conservative – fewer than half say it's morally acceptable – and their views on extramarital affairs are virtually identical with those of other generations.
If there's a single keynote to this cohort, it's the harm principle. Stemming from the English thinker John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," the harm principle states that individuals are free to act in any way – so long as that behavior doesn't harm others.
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others," Mill wrote. "In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Values in tension
One implication of Mill's argument is that "If it's consensual, it's OK." A generation that embraces this ethic is thus quite open to polygamy, which is technically consensual, but quite opposed to medical testing on animals, which (to the extent animals are judged to share basic human rights) is not. But what about extramarital affairs, which young people overwhelmingly find objectionable? Affairs are arguably consensual, but they deceptively defy a marriage contract and are intrinsically harmful to spouses and children. Similar ethical thinking that places a high value on protecting vulnerable parties seems to be at work on abortion and especially suicide, which young people perceive in even more conservative terms than seniors.
Generational attitudes are fluid – and strongly shaped by culture. Ten years ago, TV shows like "Big Love" and "Sister Wives" that have softened our perceptions of polygamy didn't exist. And today's young people may not recall polygamy's long history of harm to women – not to mention society.
But an even stronger influence than watching television is becoming a parent, which is why moral attitudes often grow more conservative as people age. So here's a safe prediction: In 30 years, today's younger generation (who will then be ages 48 to 64) will be fretting over what the latest Gallup survey shows about teenage values.
Mourners comfort Fahad Saleem (R), son of Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, during the reporter's funeral ceremony in Karachi on June 1. Hundreds of mourners turned out Wednesday for the burial of a Pakistan journalist who had said he was being threatened by the country's intelligence services before he was killed. (Credit: RIZWAN TABASSUM/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom)
Keeping on with the work of a slain journalist in Pakistan
At today's funeral for a slain Pakistani reporter, journalists vowed to keep on with the hard-nosed coverage that the reporter, Syed Saleem Shahzad, was known for. "We will not shut our voices down," said Azhar Abbas, a high-profile Pakistani journalist. "The journalist community is united on this. We will not stop."
That is a courageous declaration, a potentially self-sacrificial one in a country such as Pakistan. In 2010, Pakistan had the highest number of journalist deaths in the world – eight, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York. The committee calculates a global "impunity index" of unsolved murders of journalists. In its updated index, published today, the report finds that "deadly, unpunished violence against journalists often leads to vast self-censorship" in the press corps.
It's not known, and may well never be known, who was behind the apparent torture and killing of Mr. Shahzad, who was the Pakistani bureau chief of the Asia Times Online website. He covered terrorism, and in 2006 was held for several days by the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the Associated Press reports that Shahzad had told Human Rights Watch he feared that Pakistani intelligence agents were after him.
In October, Pakistani security agencies pressured him to reveal his sources after he alleged in a story that Pakistan had released a captured Taliban commander. Last week Shahzad wrote about Al Qaeda allegedly infiltrating Pakistan's navy – this on the heels of insurgents seizing a navy base in the south of the country.
A delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists met last month with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and other government officials about the abysmal record of impunity related to the killing of journalists in Pakistan. Promises were made to address the problem. But as the committee reports, even well-intentioned officials and prosecutions can fail in the face of entrenched corruption and dysfunction in law enforcement.
Still, that does not make progress impossible. Condemnation of unpunished murders of journalists can make a difference. The committee's 2011 index reports improvement in Russia, for instance, where murders of journalists have declined and prosecutors succeeded in two high-profile convictions. On Tuesday, Russian security forces arrested the suspected gunman in the case of renowned journalist Anna Politkovskaya. The investigative reporter, a critic of the Kremlin and human rights abuses in Chechnya, was fatally shot in her Moscow apartment building in 2006.
Of course, in a legal system as corrupt as Russia's, one has to wonder whether there will ever be an attempt to get to the mastermind behind the crime. The arrest may be merely an attempt to silence the critics. That's what those who target journalists want – critics silenced. Which is why the pledge of Pakistani journalists to keep up with vigorous reporting is so remarkable, and necessary.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio checks his phone on the Senate steps as Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama arrives back from the White House with a group of Senate Republicans who met with President Obama on the possibility of raising the debt ceiling. ((Credit: Tom Williams/Roll Call/Newscom))
House vote on raising debt ceiling: Can spending cuts wait?
A House vote this evening on raising the federal debt ceiling will be mainly kabuki-like political theater. The GOP is expected to vote down the proposal, setting the stage for negotiations with Democrats later this summer.
But how soon should Congress act on deficit reduction?
One answer comes from a new report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Entitled “The Global Outlook for Government Debt Over the Next 25 Years,” the report suggests that lawmakers not make any big cuts until 2013-2015, or after the economic recovery is solid.
Congress should agree now, however, on long-term changes to Social Security and medical programs to reassure financial markets about US creditworthiness, it finds.
Here’s a big reason for at least agreeing to cuts without actually making them now:
“Under the baseline scenario, general government net debt in the United States is project to rise from 65 percent GDP in 2010 to 99 percent of GDP in 2020 and 213 percent of GDP in 2035.”
The report’s estimates are worse then the government’s projections because it factors in negative consequences on the economy from larger debt, such as inflation and higher interest rates.
The upshot? If nothing is done, the US will face a crisis sometime before 2035. But the crisis may come slowly, not in a sudden crash. For advanced economies like the US, there will likely be “a progressive strangulation of a nation’s wellbeing,” through hyperinflation or deep recession.
What complicates any study of US debt is the unique aspect that all advanced economies are suffering high debt at the same time. It’s hard to predict market reactions in that case.
This report, written by Joseph E. Gagnon and Marc Hinterschweiger, cited a 2007 study about historical motivations for wealthier countries to act on fiscal problems. That study found a government is almost three times more likely to act immediately after an election than as a result of a jump in the fiscal deficit.
What does that portend?
Congress may likely put off serious deficit reduction until 2013, after the next federal election – or about the time this report recommends real cuts kick in.
The emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, meets April 14 in the Oval Office with President Barack Obama. The American president had high praise for the Qatari monarch's support for democracy in Libya. (Credit: Gary Fabiano/Sipa Press/Newscom )
Qatar: The small Arab monarchy with the loud democratic voice
Qatar, the tiny monarchy on the Persian Gulf that's rich in natural gas, is by no means a free country. And yet, it's become a champion for freedom in North Africa and the Middle East. Can it be a credible advocate, given its own democracy deficit?
It won high praise from President Obama as the prime Arab backer of the democratic cause in Libya. It led the Arab League to support the no-fly zone over Libya, and then it sent its fighter jets to enforce it. Qatar became the first Arab country to recognize the rebel transitional council as the only legitimate government in Libya. It's helping the rebels market their oil.
There's more. That stubborn dictator in Yemen who won't leave? Qatar and other countries the belong to the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council have been working on a deal to get him to quit. Meanwhile, Qatar wants to set up a Middle East Development Bank to support Arab countries as they undergo democratic transitions. The bank would be modeled on the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development that proved so crucial in helping Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
But there is another side to Qatar's democracy ledger. The country backed up Saudi troops in neighboring Bahrain to put down democratic protesters there (Qatar says it had to fulfill its alliance obligations). It's friendly with Iran (in the interests of fending off a grab of an enormous gas field that it shares with Iran). Despite reforms in recent years that allow municipal elections and women to vote, the rule of the royal family is firm. The watchdog group Freedom House designates Qatar "not free." The group complains especially about the lack of rights for foreign workers, who make up the majority of the population.
A good illustration of the credibility question is the Middle East media giant, al-Jazeera. The satellite TV network is based in Qatar, and owned by the government. Executives say the network maintains editorial independence, but apparently not. It reported enthusiastically and continually on the revolutions in North Africa, but it's been criticized for under-reporting the put down of protesters next door in Bahrain.
At the moment, Qatar itself is a peninsula of stability in the region. No mass protests here. Its wealth and social support for its citizens, and its reforms in education and the economy, have kept it peaceful and growing (its economic growth for this year is forecast at 20 percent -- the highest in the world).
Qatar is a helpful US ally. It is home to an American airbase, and has withstood severe criticism in the Arab world for that. It can be a forceful advocate for democracy in the region because of its influence, wealth, and forward-leaning ruler. But it will have to keep moving in the democracy direction itself, or, like its famed TV network, it may begin to lose the confidence of the democracy builders it is trying to help.
Bosnian Muslim women, survivors of Srebrenica atrocities in 1995, watch the news on the arrest of Ratko Mladic, in Sarajevo on May 26. ((Credit: AFP photo - Elivs Barukcic - Newscom))
Europe's triumph in the arrest of Ratko Mladic
A diverse Europe has long struggled to end its history of ethnic and religious violence. The European Union was created just to do just that. On Thursday, the continent may have reached a moment of triumph with the capture of Ratko Mladić.
The former commander of the Bosnian Serb army was the most-wanted man behind the 1995 massacre of about 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica. With his arrest in Serbia (and coming trial before a Hague tribunal), the war-ravaged Balkans could now be better prepared to accept long-term peace.
The countries that once made up the former Yugoslavia were the last corner of Europe still prone to large-scale ethnic or religious violence. The victims of the Srebrenica massacre – the largest in Europe since the Holocaust – have to be given justice if the Balkans are to find peace.
The reasons for Mr. Mladić's capture have yet to emerge, but the lessons for other parts of the world – notably the Middle East – are clear. When tribal-like nations such as Serbia decide to put higher values – democracy and market economics – ahead of extreme nationalism, the chances for strife and war go down.
Serbs were not well served by leaders like Slobodan Milosevic who whipped up nationalist passions and historic resentments to stay in power. After a slow transition and astute intervention by the West, Serbia is now eager to join the EU and boost its economy. The capture of Mladić, who may have been protected by some Serb security forces, was a key condition for membership.
The lure of EU-style prosperity, as well as the influence that rising wealth will have on democracy in Serbia, must have contributed to the capture of Mladić.
Civic values do matter, and eventually win out. That's an important lesson now for places like Syria, Libya, and Yemen, where young Arabs of differing tribal and religious stripes are struggling to overcome differences to set up democracies and achieve a better life.
[A footnote: The Monitor discovered the massacre site of the Srebrenica victims, winning the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.]
President Obama delivers his keynote speech to both Houses of Parliament in the historic Westminster Hall in London, previously accorded only to a handful of eminent figures like Nelson Mandela, Charles de Gaulle, and the Pope. (Credit: PA Photos/ABACA/Newscom)
Obama's 'values' speech at Westminster
One thing President Obama knows how to do is give a good speech. He delivered one today before the British Parliament, which was gathered in London's majestic Westminster Hall where no US president has ever spoken before.
In a nutshell, the president focused on the democratic and free-market values that bind the United States and the United Kingdom, and that sustain their leadership role in the world.
Values talk can get poo-pooed as empty rhetoric. But this was the right time and place for today's speech, coming in the middle of the president's week-long tour of Europe.
It's been a particularly rocky decade between the US and Europe generally, with war and recession challenging the world's democracy leaders. Europeans have been looking for a "reset" in transatlantic relations. At the same time, a vital corner of the world is now reaching for the rights that Americans, Britons, and other Europeans enjoy – a confirmation that it is values, and not just policies, that drive people.
"As two of the most powerful nations in history, we must always remember that the true source of our influence hasn't just been the size of our economy, the reach of our military, or the land that we've claimed," the president said. "It has been the values that we must never waver in defending around the world – the idea that all human beings are endowed with certain rights that cannot be denied."
On a global scale, you can see the difference that democratic values make. Security and economic interests – and arm-twisting – drove Russia and China to allow the UN no-fly resolution on Libya. But it is the democratic doer countries of NATO that are carrying out the military mission. And it is the freedom idea that caused Libyan rebels to denounce Turkey – a democracy – for resisting a no-fly zone.
Values without deeds are what make for empty rhetoric. At important points in history, the Americans and British have infused their morals with meaning – on the beaches at Normandy, during the cold war, and in the post-communist era.
This century demands more democratic deeds, otherwise known as leadership. That is the test for Mr. Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and other leaders of the ever-growing democratic club.
Become part of the Monitor community
36K on Facebook | 12K on Twitter | 2,250 on YouTube