RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Borger reports: "President Barack Obama today sought to reset US relations with the Arab world in the wake of anti-American riots."

President Obama adresses the United Nation's General Assembly. (photo: ABC News)
President Obama adresses the United Nation's General Assembly. (photo: ABC News)


Obama Uses UN Speech to Condemn Extremism

By Julian Borger, Guardian UK

26 September 12

 

President warns Iran time is running out in UN general assembly speech aimed at resetting relations between US and Arab world

resident Barack Obama today sought to reset US relations with the Arab world in the wake of anti-American riots triggered by an amateur video insulting the prophet Mohamed, that led to the death of the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Obama used his speech to the UN general assembly, expected to be his last major foreign policy address before the November elections, to pay a personal tribute to Stevens, highlighting the murdered diplomat's passion for Arab culture and support for democracy, and present it a model for American-Arab relations.

The president also restated the US position on the Iran nuclear programme: that there was still time for diplomacy, but not "unlimited time". He also called for the emergence of a new, democratic and inclusive government in Syria, but offered no new ideas about how the international community should help attain that goal, or how the deadlock in the UN security council over Syria might be broken.

In a landmark speech in Cairo three years ago, Obama promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between his country and the Islamic world, but that relationship is now at its lowest point since the start of the Arab spring as a result of a YouTube video clip made by an Egyptian American insulting the prophet Mohamed.

The crude 14-minute clip went viral over the summer, triggering furious anti-American demonstrations across the Middle East and the wider Islamic world.

Obama balanced condemnation of the "crude and disgusting" video, with a denunciation of the violence that it sparked and a demand for the new Arab governments to do more to defend American diplomats.

"I have made it clear that the US government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity," Obama said. " It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country."

Obama rejected calls from Arab and other Islamic leaders for the YouTube video to be somehow banned, pointed to US constitutional protections of free speech and the technical impossibility of controlling such broadcasts.

"[I]n 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence," he said. He also criticised double standards in the protection of religion in the Middle East.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied," the president said.

He also made clear his dissatisfaction with the reaction of some Arab governments to the wave of anti-American riots. US officials have singled out the Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, in this regard.

"If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis," he said.

Obama expressed gratitude to the government and people of Libya, after pro-American protesters seized control of the bases of the extremist militias implicated in the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, but he made it clear Washington did not believe all the perpetrators had been caught, and left open the option of taking direct action.

"The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and the Libyan people. And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice," the president said.

Earlier, the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon issued an unusually stern denouncement of security council inaction over Syria, which he called "a regional calamity with global ramifications."

"This is a serious and growing threat to international peace and security which requires security council action," Ban said. "The international community should not look the other way as violence spirals out of control."

UN officials said that Ban has become increasingly frustrated by the security council's deadock over Syria and had decided to speak out in his bluntest speech to date.

He also called for those responsibility for atrocities in Syria to be held accountable, noting "there is no statute of limitations for such extreme violence", and placing most of the blame on the Assad regime. At present, Russian and Chinese objections are blocking the international criminal court from launching an investigation into war crimes, and Ban's comments were widely seen at the UN as a direct rebuke for their obstruction of the machinery of international justice.

"Brutal human rights abuses continue to be committed, mainly by the government, but also by opposition groups. Such crimes must not go unpunished," he said. "It is the duty of our generation to put an end to impunity for international crimes, in Syria and elsewhere. It is our duty to give tangible meaning to the responsibility to protect."

The responsibility to protect was a principle adopted by the UN in the 1990s, stating that the international community to intervene to protect civilian populations when their states were unwilling or unable to do so.

Ban also had pointed words for two leaders due to speak at the same UN podium later in the week: Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling for them to pull back from the brink of a new Middle East conflict, and to ratchet down their rhetoric.

"I … reject both the language of de-legitimisation and threats of potential military action by one state against another. Any such attacks would be devastating. The shrill war talk of recent weeks has been alarming," Ban said. "Leaders have a responsibility to use their voices to lower tensions instead of raising the temperature and volatility of the moment."

Netanyahu has been successful in displacing the Israel-Palestinian impasse from the international agenda by repeated threats to take military action against Iran. But he was warned by Ban that his government's policies in the West Bank were stoking renewed conflict.

"The two-state solution is the only sustainable option. Yet the door may be closing, for good. The continued growth of Israeli settlement settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory seriously undermines efforts toward peace. We must break this dangerous impasse," Ban said.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-9 # Michael_K 2012-09-26 12:50
If this doesn't put to rest any notion that Obama has the slightest progressive molecule in his body, I don't know what will!
 
 
-8 # HowardMH 2012-09-27 09:11
Remember when Libya got really stupid and took down an American airplane. What happened – Reagan ordered the bombing of the leader’s home and killed one of his daughters and others. Guess what - didn’t hear a peep out of Libya for 25 yrs and all it took was a very few airplanes and ONE bombing run. And how did WWII end? Again two bombs on two cities in Japan and it was all over. Truman was my hero, and I haven’t seen one politician since with his level of leadership.
When the US Embassy residence in Libya was attacked and destroyed the Libyan people knew who did it and because their own government is so weak they took action on their own. Now what if and that is a Big IF Obama the Wimp had any backbone at all he could have gotten that information from the Libyan Government, and with a very little coordination bombed those terrorist headquarters in two or three cities in Libya and guess what – the terrorist that were left would leave the country quicker than you can blink. Butttt, we have Obama the Wimp.
 
 
+7 # Glen 2012-09-27 09:57
I take it you are enjoying wars and attacks and killing thousands of people.

Your research on the subject is faulty and without basis in fact. Recheck your history concerning Truman and Reagan, et al., and their objectives in doing what they did. You also do need a lesson in what the U.S. has done to the Middle East, along with Britain, France and Israel. I seriously doubt that you would object to any in the U.S. were we attacked and occupied, to fight back by any means.

Taking pride in Ronald Reagan is about the worst attitude in your arsenal.
 
 
+2 # SMoonz 2012-09-27 15:01
Reagan did not attack Lybia because of the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie explosion. Pan Am 103 happened in 1988.
Reagan attacked Lybia in 1986 as retaliation over the bombing of the West Berlin nightclub the La Belle.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2012-09-28 04:48
I remember it well. SMoonz you have brought it all back. A small group of us were on a fire tower observing Halley's comet with the short wave radio on. The reports on the attack stimulated a discussion on war and "what if...". A disturbing but interesting night.
 
 
+17 # Kwelinyingi 2012-09-26 17:11
If extremism is mostly about murdered American diplomats and not the deaths of thousands of innocents in needless and destructive wars we have launched on the Muslim and Arab world, then that is self-deception. If extremism excludes ruthless drone attacks resulting in deaths of innocents and without giving suspects due process, we are being disingenuous in imposing our own convenient definition of extremism. If "..resetting US relations with the Arab world in the wake of anti-American riots triggered by an amateur video insulting the prophet Mohamed" ignores the underlying issues of routine Israeli injustices and savagery meted out to Palestinians while we conveniently look the other way, that is naivete in the extreme. Our condescending assumption is that the average Arab or Muslim is incapable of seeing see through our decades of neglect and lies. More appropriately, we simply do not care. It is long past the time for us to summon the courage to fashion a Mideast foreign policy that do not advance Israel's interests ahead of and stop playing second fiddle to the Israeli lobby. That strategy might actually work. But the second coming might actually come sooner.
 
 
+2 # America 2012-09-27 06:10
Well said. Well thought out. MY sentiments exactly. The speech was just a broad brush against extremeism but does not address some of the extremeisms which the USA practies
 
 
+3 # Activista 2012-09-26 20:00
Iran time is running out? More of the Obama sick war propaganda.
Iran nuclear program and US/Israel PROPAGANDA
1. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." - correct: "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
2. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa AGAINST nuclear weapons.
3. Iran has a legitimate need for more energy, which is driving its nuclear efforts.
4. The US and Israel both say Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program.

Iran's nuclear program: 4 things you probably didn't know
www.csmonitor.com
Do the US and Israel believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?
As somebody (Tom) pointed here before - Obama does NOT have a clue ... and October (surprise) is next week.
 
 
-5 # Independentgal 2012-09-27 05:57
You are so wrong about Ahmadinejad never having said Israel should be wiped off the map. Many times he has said things like that -- maybe not those exact words, but words to that effect and probably those too. Speaking of propaganda, I believe that's what you're spreading.
 
 
+3 # Glen 2012-09-27 07:41
If that be true, Independentgal, then why has Iran not already made good on any so-called threats and/or wishes of ill will? It wouldn't take a nuke to take Israel and the entire middle east further into misery and make Israel pay for their own sins of war crimes and genocide. Having said that, however, and as many have already said, Iran does not wish to commit suicide.

Iran is surrounded with militaries, mercenaries, the CIA, NATO, and Israel, all with nothing BUT ill will toward Iran. Close your eyes and pretend it is the U.S. How would THIS government respond. OH, shucks, I forgot. We ALREADY have nukes and have actually used them.
 
 
+5 # Activista 2012-09-27 11:29
Speaking of propaganda? Please document IN CONTEXT Ahmadinejad that:
1. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." - correct: "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
My information is from:
www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0608/Iran-s-nuclear-program-4-things-you-probably-didn-t-know
 
 
+6 # Smiley 2012-09-26 22:05
A few things to add....

Iran has signed the non proliferation treaty. Israel has not and isn't hiding the fact that they HAVE developed nukes. Bibi is WAY nuttier that Ahmadinejad. And Hillary said if Iran responded to an attack we would "obliterate" Iran.
 
 
+2 # Phlippinout 2012-09-27 06:08
Yes he is a lot nuttier than Ahmadinejad! He is an angry man with lots of weapons! How dangerous is that?
 
 
+3 # RMDC 2012-09-27 02:20
"The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and the Libyan people. And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice," the president said.

And what about the president's attacks on Arab civilians. How many people have been murdered by the Bush/Obama regimes? I'd say better than 2 million.

Obama's speech shows him to be as vicious and blind as all other american presidents. He does not understand the amount of suffering the US and NATO have inflicted on Muslim peoples.
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2012-09-27 02:24
"The responsibility to protect was a principle adopted by the UN in the 1990s"

No -- this was Bill Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's phony excuse to begin a bombing campaign in Serbia that only killed a lot more people. They did not protect anyone. No the Obama regime wants to use this principle to bomb Syria. Well, what if the rest of the world used this principle to protect Syrians or Iranian from American aggression. Would they have a right to bomb US cities. What a stupid idea this is. THe US is the instigator of the violence in Syria. It cannot protect anyone. It is the cause of the violence. If the US wants to protect people, it will call off its terrorists, mercenaries, and al Queda fighters and leave Syria alone.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2012-09-27 11:37
bombing campaign in Yugoslavia - reminds me of NATO (US) bombing bridge in Belgrade with civilian train on it ... this is WAR CRIME by WAR CRIMINAL - DEMOCRAT - Bill Clinton.
"by mid-April the emphasis had changed to strategic and economic targets such as transport links, particularly major bridges. Many civilian casualties were reported in the solely residential areas far beyond such targets, as well as in destroyed media homes, public transportation vehicles, hotels and clerical offices" - wikipedia
 
 
+2 # Artemis 2012-09-27 02:40
US hypocrisy has never been worse than today. But the tide appears to be turning, also for Israel's right-wing policies. The more people who stand up now for economic and social justice and human rights for all, the better.
However, even though Egypt's new leader spoke of important issues in a clear voice, I regret that he felt the need to introduce himself in a religious manner. That is absolutely unnecessary at the UN, even if he wished to demonstrate his revulsion against religious attacks on the prophet Mouhammed!
 
 
+4 # RMDC 2012-09-27 03:13
In his UN speech, Obama the Nobel peace prize laureate threatened war against Iran. The UN was created to end war and Obama profaned the hall with his calls for war. He said,

“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy.

Nothing here is true. He assumes Iran is building a nuclear bomb when all reports have said the contrary. And even if Iran had a nuclear bomb, it could be contained. Iran has never threatened any nation. It is the US and Israel that are threats to the stabiliity of the world. The US threatens and invades more nations and any empire in human history.

The Obama regime is just as war-mongering as the Bush Regime. It is time for a regime change in the US.

How does he think a nuclear armed Iran would threaten the global economy? This is pure non-sense and bull shit. It is the global banks, including the banks who pay for his campaign, that are threatening the global economy. In short, it is Obama who is threatening the world on all levels -- war, economy, peace, and just common sense.

Obama is nothing more than a tool for the ruling elites. He might as well be a mannikin or a wind up doll blurting out words written by the elite fascists of the world.
 
 
+3 # Phlippinout 2012-09-27 06:10
Obamas piece prize, his award for blowing innocent people into bits!
 
 
0 # America 2012-09-27 06:53
No doubt it was a tough scenario for Obama.

He had to address the world at a time with the Arab anti USA uproar and the recent murder of the USA embassy staff in Libya, and still we aware of the impact of his speech on his own American citizens with the election close by.

We have to conceed that while his address to the world via the U.N. was important the priority was to win the upcoming election. It would be foolish to make a great speech for the history books but one that would turn off his own constituents.

He tried the middle ground while there really was none. Unlike his usual style he spoke in hurried manner.

SO his strategy was to snob Nethanyahu (Netty) as he should. Why would he meet with a select few including him when there were 192 countries represented.

Netty's sabre rattling should not be endorsed. So he said enough to keep his Jewish constitutents onboard. We must conceed he went far in not condemning the Muslims as the Republicans and Romney are doing and talked generally against extremism.

We probably should cut him some slack then pound him after the elections for some of the things highlighted above by Kwelinyingi
 
 
0 # Kwelinyingi 2012-09-27 07:30
Sorry, had trouble with my touch pad and the sentence "...that do not advance Israel's interests ahead of..." should read "...ahead of our own".
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-09-27 08:55
While i certainly agree that the speech was hypocritical at best (no mention, for example, about the repressive regimes that are "friendly" to the US e.g., Saudi Arabia or Bahrain) this doesn't mean we should at the same time either romanticize or pretend that either Ahmadinejad or gaddafi are truly progressive forces either...i would agree that Ahmadinejad is much more of a mixed bag than he is presented here and that early on gaddafi did play a progressive role but then he turned and embraced the west and our neo-liberal ideas. So, it is one thing to be totally critical of Israeli state policies towards the Palestinians, Iran, etc., but that then doesn't mean the the uprisings in the Arab world have been primarily sparked by this or they they are then necessarily simply brought about (some here argue led and or initiated) by the CIA/US etc. The fact that capital is (as it always does) try to jump out ahead of an uprising to either derail and or coopt it doesn't make the rebellion itself any less valid or something that we should not support (though of course opposing outside military interventions and the arming of the so-called "rebels" who tend to be the ones that we want to deal with and or see put in power. Bottom line, i think it is often a lot more complex than some on this board make things out to be.
 
 
+7 # seeuingoa 2012-09-27 10:34
condemn extremism !

if kill list and indefinite detention
is not extremism, what is ?
 
 
+1 # Activista 2012-09-27 14:51
Netanyahu UN speech: " ....to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program all together,"
Iran does NOT have ANY nuclear weapons program (despite the Mossad propaganda/lies ) aka WMD in Iraq - Invented in Israel.
Iran nuclear program and US/Israel PROPAGANDA ..
.....
4. The US and Israel both say Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program.

Is there ANY politician/lead er in the USA to call Netanyahu bluff?
www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0608/Iran-s-nuclear-program-4-things-you-probably-didn-t-know
 
 
+3 # RMDC 2012-09-27 16:11
Netanyahoo is insane. He's been saying that Iran is building a nuclear bomb and must be stopped ever since 1992. Back in 92 he was says Iran is only a year away from having the bomb and it would attack Israel. There was no Achmadinejad then.

Israel would be a much better nation if it could get rid of its loonies in the Likud party. We have our teabaggers and republicans and Israel has its Likud (and other smaller and even more lunatic right wing parties).

About 40% of Israelis would like to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. But the right wing all over the world only dreams about war.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2012-09-28 08:42
Yes - Netanyahoo is insane - psychopath leading nuclear military power threatening neighbor nations with destruction and acting (like bombing tiny Gaza 4 years ago - 1400+ (300 children included) KILLED.
"Many have wondered for years about the exact capabilities of the submarines Germany exports to Israel. Now, experts in Germany and Israel have confirmed that nuclear-tipped missiles have been deployed on the vessels. And the German government has long known about it. By SPIEGEL"
deployed in Persian Gulf - and blackmailing US -president - with US $3 billion + per year military "foreign" help (bombs again Iran) going to Israel.
Sorry - nuclear war is big price to pay for Obama/US "to keep his Jewish constituents on board"
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN