the role Egypt should play, as an important ally of Sudan, in resolving the conflict

TO BE NOTED: From Enough:

President Obama: World Has "Obligation to Act" To Stop Genocide

Posted by Laura Heaton on Jun 05, 2009

Following up on his speech in Cairo yesterday, President Obama, speaking at the Nazi Concentration Camp Buchenwald, today addressed the genocide in Darfur and his administration's behind-the-scenes work to address Sudan's immediate humanitarian needs and broader, long-term efforts to end the conflict.

In a response to a reporter's question, here's what the president said:

…On the issue of genocide, I think “never again” means that the international community has a obligation, even when it’s inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring. So on the issue of Darfur, for example, I didn’t simply mention it in a speech yesterday before a Muslim audience, talking about genocide that’s taking place within a majority Muslim country, but I also raised it in discussions with President Mubarak of Egypt, who has strong diplomatic relations with the country of Sudan.

And I’ve assigned one of my closest national security advisors, General Scott Gration, as a special envoy who has been traveling throughout the region trying to not only solve the immediate humanitarian crisis that exists and that was made worse when President Bashir kicked out many of the international non-governmental organizations that have been providing humanitarian assistance. We’ve been working diligently to solve that immediate problem and get humanitarian assistance back on the ground. But what we’ve also been doing is to try to reactivate the possibilities of a peaceful — a peace settlement between Khartoum and some of the rebels in Darfur that would allow the internally displaced people from Darfur to start returning to their homes.

So we’ve been very active on this issue. It may not have received the attention in the press that some of the other issues have, but we are spending a lot of time trying to make sure that we make progress and that the people of Darfur are able to return to their homes and live in peace.

It is promising to see that President Obama knew it was insufficient to address ongoing genocide in just one line of his speech; it was imperative that President Obama discuss with Egyptian President Mubarak the role Egypt should play, as an important ally of Sudan, in resolving the conflict. Coming on the heels of a high-profile speech, with international headlines still buzzing about what the president did and didn't say, the public is more tuned into his subsequent remarks, which is helpful for keeping a spotlight on Sudan. It’s also noteworthy that while the president avoided using the word ‘genocide’ yesterday to describe the conflict in Darfur, today he didn’t shy away. Against the backdrop of the site of unimaginable suffering, the president's words are a powerful call to action.

But as we have been saying, along with editorial boards, activists, and U.S. leaders, President Obama's strong rhetoric must be followed up with concrete action. This high-profile verbal commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur is very welcome, but we -- and certainly the people of Darfur and Sudan as a whole -- are waiting to see the tangible results.

N.B.: To listen to a powerful radio broadcast by Edward Murrow from 1945, reporting on the liberation of Buchenwald, click here.

Photo: President Barack Obama delivers remarks at Nazi concentration camp Buchenwald, alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. AP/Ina Fassbender"

From the WSJ:

"President Barack Obama called “for all of us to redouble our efforts” toward separate Israeli and Palestinian states. Alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel one day after his trip to the Middle East, Obama said: “The United States can’t force peace upon the parties.” But he said America has “at least created the space, the atmosphere, in which talks can restart.” Here, the remarks from their news conference in Dresden.

10:30 A.M. (Local)

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As translated.) We are delighted to have the American President here this morning with us, after having met the last time at the NATO summit. We will visit a little bit of Dresden and later on we go on to Buchenwald, to the former concentration camp. I think that this is, indeed, a trip of a highly symbolic nature. Let me just remind all of us of the visit to Buchenwald that we will take later in the day. It is so important that the American President, Barack Obama, makes his first stop here in Dresden. This is a highly symbolic city. It is a city that was almost completely destroyed during the Second World War, was then rebuilt after Germany unification. It has again turned out to be a jewel of German culture and civilization. The people here are so glad that you’ve come to see them because it shows that you also pay tribute to the tremendous efforts they made in those 20 years after the fall of the wall.

We have made very good use of that time, talking about the political agenda, pressing issues. President Obama yesterday gave a very important speech in Cairo, which I think will be an ideal basis for a lot of action of a positive nature, particularly as regards speeding of the peace process in the Middle East. We also talked about a possible time frame for possible progress to be made. I said on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany that we would like to try and be helpful in this peace process to the extent that this is possible to us. We need a two-state solution; we need a viable Palestinian state and a viable state of Israel, side by side. And whatever we can do in order to constructively accompany this along the way we will gladly do.

The status of negotiations with Iran on the nuclear program was also at the very top of our agenda. Here, too, we agreed to work closely together. Germany will try its utmost with its contacts, with its expert knowledge to give a positive contribution to this issue.

We also obviously debated the situation on world markets. We exchanged views on the different stimulus programs that we pursue in our countries. And we also talked about what we feel is necessary in order to prepare the next G20 meeting, then also the upcoming G8 meeting. What is important is to implement what we decided on in London. The European states are now doing that; the United States are doing that. You have a very ambitious plan that you outlaid. So we will keep a close eye on developments. And then in the autumn when we meet at G20 we will also state very clearly that strengthening the multilateral system is also one that we consider to be important.

This year negotiations on climate change, on a post-Kyoto regime are also on the agenda. We very much welcome the very, very hard work that the United States has done in order to see to it that the necessary answers are found for this phenomenon of climate change. We know that it’s very much an uphill battle; we’re very familiar with that from the debate that we have here in our country. And we are keeping a close eye on legislation that is passed. We, I think, are at one in saying we need an ambitious program, we want to have successful negotiations in Copenhagen, and we want to make the best possible use of our time leading up to this.

Once again, a very warm welcome to you, sir, and we are so glad that you and the members of your team have taken the trouble to come here.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, everybody. Good morning. It is wonderful to be in the beautiful city of Dresden, which obviously is steeped in history and, as Chancellor Merkel discussed, has overcome great tragedies and is now this beautiful city full of hope. And so I’m very grateful to not only Chancellor Merkel but to the German people for their hospitality.

Germany is a close friend and a critical partner to the United States, and I believe that friendship is going to be essential not only for our two countries but for the world if we are to make progress on some of the critical issues that we face, whether it’s national security issues or economic issues or issues that affect the globe like climate change.

Chancellor Merkel, as she mentioned, and I had a very productive discussion. We continue to work closely together to confront the global economic crisis and to restore growth and prosperity for our people. The downturn knows no borders and it will take some time and sustained action by all of us to move forward.

At the G20, we successfully laid out the parameters for collective action. And we’ve seen, I think on both sides of the Atlantic, some progress in stabilizing the economy, but we’re far from done in the work that’s required. I mentioned to her that, in the United States, we are working diligently to strengthen financial regulations to ensure that a crisis like this doesn’t happen again, and it’s going to be very important to coordinate between Europe and the United States as we move to strengthen our financial regulatory systems. We affirmed that we are not going to engage in protectionism. And as all of us do what’s required to restart our economy, we have to make sure that we keep our borders open and that companies can move back and forth between the United States and Europe in providing goods and services to our respective countries.

I’m very pleased to see the resolution of the Opel situation here. We are very sympathetic towards each other, that it’s not easy to help auto companies restructure, and it’s not always popular, but it’s also, we are convinced, the right thing to do. And I’m hopeful that not only are we going to see these companies stabilize, but also that they’re going to emerge even stronger and more competitive in the international marketplace.

Chancellor Merkel and I discussed a range of security challenges. Germany has been a very strong NATO partner. As all of you know, we have great challenges in Afghanistan and increasingly in Pakistan, but our collective commitment to making sure that we are not seeing the kinds of terrorist bases that could pose harm to all of our people, that we maintain that commitment.

We also discussed the issue of Iran — and not in isolation, but in a broader context of avoiding a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could be profoundly dangerous. And I’ve said publicly that I’m committed to engaging in serious dialogue and negotiations with Iran. That can’t be done in isolation, it has to be done in conjunction with the P5-plus-1 or the E3-plus-3 process, and Germany is going to be a critical partner in that process.

Later in the summer I will be traveling to Russia to discuss how we can reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles and Russian nuclear stockpiles. And so as I said, our concern is not just Iran, but a broader effort to strengthen nonproliferation so that the threat of nuclear weapons is greatly reduced in our lifetime.

And as the Chancellor mentioned, we discussed my recent trip to the Middle East and the need for all of us to redouble our efforts to bring about two states, Israel and a Palestinian state, that are living side by side in peace and security. I think the moment is now for us to act on what we all know to be the truth, which is that each side is going to have to make some difficult compromises; we have to reject violence. The Palestinians have to get serious about creating the security environment that is required for Israel to feel confident. Israelis are going to have to take some difficult steps. I discussed some of those in the speech.

Ultimately, the United States can’t force peace upon the parties. But what we’ve tried to do is to clear away some of the misunderstandings so that we can at least begin to have frank dialogue. And we’re not going to be able to do that by ourselves; we’re going to require strong partners like Germany in that process. And I know that Chancellor Merkel is very much committed to that.

So, again, it is a great pleasure to be here. It is a great pleasure to be with my friend once again, who I always seek out for intelligent analysis and straight talk. And I’m looking forward to continued partnership between our two countries to deal with the wide range of issues that we confront at this time.

So thank you very much.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, I believe you have the possibility to ask questions. Maybe we ought to — do we start with a German question?

Q Christiane Meier, from the First German Television. Mr. President, did you have the opportunity to also address the issue of Guantanamo and do you feel sufficiently supported by Europe and here, in particular, by Germany, in accepting prisoners, former prisoners? And does this perhaps overshadow your relationship with the Chancellor or perhaps not — there has been certain mild, sometimes even wild speculation over the course that your trip took, that you left certain venues open until the end and that this had something to do with your relationship with the Chancellor.

And Chancellor, did you make an offer or were you actually able as regards Guantanamo to give certain assurances to the President and accommodate him?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think your characterization of wild speculations is accurate — they are very wild and based on no facts. The truth of the matter is, is that the relationship not only between our two countries but our two governments is outstanding. Most of the speculation around my schedule here in Germany doesn’t take into account simple logistics: traveling, trying to get from one place to the other, coming off a Middle East trip, having to go to Normandy tomorrow. There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip. That’s all that there was.

So stop it, all of you. (Laughter.) I know you have to find something to report on, but we have more than enough problems out there without manufacturing problems.

In terms of the issue of Guantanamo, look, this is a very difficult issue. It’s difficult in my country; it’s difficult internationally. We have a facility that contains some people who are very difficult to deal with. Some of them probably should not have been detained in those facilities in the first place. They should have been processed and tried and convicted. If they weren’t convicted, then they should not have been languishing in a facility like that, that became a symbol for many around the world of us not sticking to our ideals and our traditions and rule of law.

But it was done. And that’s the past. And now we have to move forward. We have spoken to the European Union about the possibilities of working with us and helping us in managing the closure of Guantanamo. Chancellor Merkel has been very open to discussions with us. We have not asked her for hard commitments, and she has not given us any hard commitments beyond having a serious discussion about are there ways that we can solve this problem. And I don’t anticipate that it’s going to be resolved anytime in the next two or three months. I think it’s going to be a longer process of evaluation.

But I’m very appreciative of the openness, not only of Chancellor Merkel but other European countries to work with us, because I think they recognize that we have a shared interest in battling extremists and terrorists at the same time as we have a shared interest in upholding broader principles of international justice; and that those things are compatible, but it’s going to take some time.

We’ll be looking at individual cases; seeing are there people who can safely be transferred; if they are safely transferred, where would they be transferred to. And this is a conversation we’re not just having with Germany but the broader European Union. And I very much appreciate the constructive manner in which Chancellor Merkel has approached the issue.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Allow me, if I may, to, as regards that one part of the question, say that it’s fun to work together with the American President because very serious, very thorough analytical discussions very often lead us to draw the same conclusions. And I think we proved that in London, we proved that on previous meetings. I think that’s part of our job, isn’t it, that you exchange views, different views that you may have also. And wherever it was necessary, we have come to common solutions. So I very much look forward to our future cooperation.

On Guantanamo, Germany has always come out in favor, in particular my government, for closing down this facility. This has been a long-standing issue. We very purposefully at the time accepted Mr. Kurnaz, who has some sort of relation to Germany. And we also said that when there is a solution in the offing we will constructively contribute to it. Now there are talks going on of the Minister of the Interior with the American side, very intensive discussions, which we wish to continue. And at the very end I am absolutely confident that we will find a common solution.

I believe a question from the American side maybe.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Just pick on somebody or —

Q Mr. President –

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, Jennifer has got the mic; sorry, Jake. (Laughter.)

Q He handed it to me, so I’m going to keep it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: There you go.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You challenged — on Mideast peace, you challenged all the parties yesterday and again here in your opening remarks to take actions. The Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arab states, things they’ve been asked to do for years, actually agreed to do, but still today remain even — perhaps even more unwilling or unable to do them. What are your specific next steps to try to break this stalemate? And why do you think your approach is realistic?

And then to Chancellor Merkel, if I could, you talked about a timeline that the two of you discussed on Mideast peace. Can you be more specific about that, please?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: As I said at the outset of my speech, yesterday was just one speech and it doesn’t replace all the hard work that’s going to have to be done — that was done before the speech and is going to have to be done in the years to come in order to solve what has been a 60-year problem. And I’m under no illusions that whatever statements I’ve put forward somehow are going to supplant the need to do that work.

I think that what is different now is, number one, you’re seeing a U.S. administration and American President engage this issue almost on the day that I took office. We’ve only been in office five months, and yet we’ve seen extraordinary activity already on this issue. And that’s sent a signal to all the parties in the Middle East that we are serious. I’ve assigned George Mitchell, my special envoy, who has met repeatedly with all the players in the region and who is going to be going back next week in the wake of my appearance in Cairo to follow up with each of the individual parties on a whole host of negotiation points and potential confidence-building measures that can be taken.

And I’ve already met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Our governments are in close contact and communication about how we can move forward on some of the items that might be inhibiting restarting talks. I’ve had Abbas in the White House to do the same.

And so you’ve probably seen more sustained activity on this issue in the first five months than you would have seen in most previous administrations. The reason we are doing that is because not only had talks ground to a halt, but there was a sense that all sides were getting so dug in and so cynical that you might reach a point where you could never get the parties back at the table. And I think given what we’ve done so far, we’ve at least created the space, the atmosphere, in which talks can restart.

Now, I just have to say one more time, the United States can’t solve this problem. The United States can be a partner in solving the problem, but ultimately the parties involved are going to have to make a decision that the prosperity and security of their people is best served by negotiations and compromise, and we can’t force them to make those difficult decisions. What we can do is to provide them a framework and a forum and the support for such an outcome to be achieved.

And I’m sure that — one of the things I very much appreciate was Chancellor Merkel’s willingness to put the prestige and the resources of the German government behind that same effort. I think the entire international community is going to have a responsibility to help these parties achieve a hard-won peace that will ultimately be good for everybody’s security interests.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, I believe that with the new American administration, with President Barack Obama, there is actually a unique opportunity now to see to it that this peace process — or let’s perhaps be more careful — this negotiation process to be revived again.

Yesterday’s speech in a way opened up also the door to the Arab world again. And in the way that it was described just now you have sort of made steps along the way. And when steps are made along the way then we feel as Germans we can perhaps be helpful to accompany this. For historical reasons we have a very close and very special relationship with Israel. We have a very great interest in the safety and security of Israel. And on the other hand we also have a very fervent wish a Palestinian state be built.

This agenda needs to be worked on step by step, but it is certainly true the parties, themselves, have to show a readiness, a willingness to do something for the peace and security of the world as a whole. I see this as a core issue, and an essential and crucial issue. And this is why we all have the wish and the willingness to bring this matter forward. The historical opportunity I think is there, even though looking at many, many countries in the Arab world — even looking at many countries in the Arab world, they have a very great interest in progress there because for the economic development as well they need peace there, they need security. And we should have every interest in seeing this bring about and we will give our contribution to it.

Q You will later on, Mr. President, visit the former concentration camp, Buchenwald. Tell me now already, if possible, what is your personal motivation, what drives you to this? We were told here in Germany that because you know Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner so well, because he told you about his periods in the camp where he suffered great hardship that this sort of made you do it.

And another political issue, if I may. Madam Chancellor, climate change. Germany, Europe are putting concrete targets on the agenda, concrete reduction targets. Will America in the post-Kyoto process be willing to commit itself to concrete reduction targets? Or are you pursuing a different kind of approach, Mr. President, similar to you predecessor in office?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, one of the main reasons for me being in Europe this week is to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the landing in Normandy. And this is a moment that obviously is of great importance to the United States, so many lives were lost during this period; it marks the beginning of the end of World War II, and many of the veterans of World War II are in the sunset of their years. And so having an opportunity to acknowledge them once again and the sacrifices they made was very important to me.

As part of that trip we thought it was very important for me to visit Buchenwald. First of all, I’ve never traveled to one of the concentration camps, but this one has a personal connection to me. It’s not only that I know Elie Wiesel and have read about his writings, it’s also that — and I’ve stated this before — that my grandfather’s — my grandmother’s brother was one — was part of the units that first liberated that camp. And I’ve talked about this before in the United States, perhaps not in Germany, the shock for this very young man — he couldn’t have been more than 19, 20, 21 at the time, was such that he ended up, when he returned, having a very difficult time readjusting to civilian life, and it was a memory that burned in him for quite some time.

And that, you know, was something that I learned about as a young person, and for me then to be able to come and reflect on this very difficult history and to not only reflect on the dangers of when peoples are in conflict and not acknowledging a common humanity; but also to celebrate how out of that tragedy you now have a unified Europe, a Germany that is a very close ally of Israel, and the possibilities of reconciliation and forgiveness and hope. All those things I think are part of why this visit is very important to me.

In terms of climate change, ultimately the world is going to need targets that it can meet. It can’t be general, vague approaches. We’re going to have to make some tough decisions and take concrete actions if we are going to deal with a potentially cataclysmic disaster. And we are seeing progress in Congress around energy legislation that would set up for the first time in the United States a cap and trade system. That process is moving forward in ways that I think if you had asked political experts two or three months ago would have seemed impossible.

So I’m actually more optimistic than I was about America being able to take leadership on this issue, joining Europe, which over the last several years has been ahead of us on this issue.

As I told Chancellor Merkel, unless the United States and Europe, with our large carbon footprints, per capita carbon footprints, are willing to take some decisive steps, it’s going to be very difficult for us to persuade countries that on a per capita basis at least are still much less wealthy, like China or India, to take the steps that they’re going to need to take in controlling carbon emissions.

So we are very committed to working together and hopeful that we can arrive in Copenhagen having displayed that commitment in concrete ways.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Allow me, if I may, to say, as to a visit to Buchenwald, that this is for me deeply moving, to see an American President, in this case President Barack Obama, as a visitor in Buchenwald. And he talked about his personal background as regards this question.

Look at Buchenwald. Buchenwald is one example of these horrible concentration camps, liberated by American troops. Later on it was turned during the Soviet period again, and it also, in the time when Germany was divided, it again became somewhat symbolic. People in that part of the country were not able to enjoy freedom and security.

Now, after the end of the Cold War, we go there after Germany has been reunited, after Europe has been reunited, now that we also enjoy freedom and democracy, as the United States does. That is very moving, and it shows you that actually history makes things possible if a sufficient number of people believe in the dream of freedom.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. A couple questions, one just to follow up on Jennifer’s. What are some of the gestures of good faith that you’d like to see from the Israelis and Palestinians? But then regarding your visit to Buchenwald, since the Holocaust, a constant refrain in the United States has been “never again,” but U.S. President after U.S. President has sat back and let genocides happen over and over, whether Cambodia or Rwanda. What does “never again” mean to you as a U.S. President, especially given the fact that genocide is going on right now in Darfur? There were accusations of genocide in Sri Lanka a few weeks ago. What does it mean to you? And are you doing everything you can to make sure “never again” is not a hollow refrain?

And then for Chancellor Merkel, does Germany not have an extra obligation to take action to prevent genocide from happening in other parts of the world? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to confidence-building measures or next steps, again, I’m going to be sending George Mitchell back into the region next week. He’s going to be meeting with all the various parties involved. I think I’ve said publicly and I repeated in the speech some things that are going to have to be done.

You know, a lot of attention has been given to my statement that the Israelis need to stop settlement construction, and I recognize that it’s received a lot of attention in Israel, as well. Keep in mind that all I’ve done there is reaffirm commitments that the Israelis themselves had already made in the road map. And I recognize the very difficult politics within Israel of getting that done, and I’m very sympathetic to how hard it will be.

But as Israel’s friend, the United States I think has an obligation to just be honest with that friend about how important it is to achieve a two-state solution — for Israel’s national security interests, as well as ours, as well as the Palestinians. And that’s an area where steps can be taken.

They’re not the only steps, by the way, that Israel can take and will need to take in order to advance movement towards peace. And I mentioned some of the other issues that I’ve discussed with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office, for example, increasing freedom of movement within the West Bank, dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and allowing reconstruction to proceed more aggressively.

What’s been interesting is that less attention has been focused on the insistence on my part that the Palestinians and the Arab states have to take very concrete actions. When it comes to the Palestinians, we know what they’re supposed to be doing. They have to continue to make progress on security in the West Bank.

They have to deal with incitement issues. There’s still a tendency, even within — among Palestinians who say they are interested in peace with Israel, to engage in statements that are — that incite a hatred of Israel or are not constructive to the peace process. Now I think, to his credit, President Abbas has made progress on this issue — but not enough.

We still have not seen a firm commitment from the Palestinian Authority that they can control some of the border areas that Israel is going to be very concerned about if there were to be a two-state solution. There are still problems of corruption and mismanagement within the Authority that have to be addressed.

So there are going to be a whole set of things having to do with the Palestinians’ ability to govern effectively and maintain security. And if they’re not solved, Israelis are going to have trouble moving forward.

And the Arab states, what I’d like to see is indicators that they are willing, if Israel makes tough commitments, to also make some hard choices that will allow for an opening of commerce, diplomatic exchanges between Israel and its neighbors.

Now, all these things are going to take time. They’re not going to happen immediately. But I’m confident that if we stick with it, having started early, that we can make some serious progress this year.

On the issue of genocide, I think “never again” means that the international community has a obligation, even when it’s inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring. So on the issue of Darfur, for example, I didn’t simply mention it in a speech yesterday before a Muslim audience, talking about genocide that’s taking place within a majority Muslim country, but I also raised it in discussions with President Mubarak of Egypt, who has strong diplomatic relations with the country of Sudan.

And I’ve assigned one of my closest national security advisors, General Scott Gration, as a special envoy who has been traveling throughout the region trying to not only solve the immediate humanitarian crisis that exists and that was made worse when President Bashir kicked out many of the international non-governmental organizations that have been providing humanitarian assistance. We’ve been working diligently to solve that immediate problem and get humanitarian assistance back on the ground. But what we’ve also been doing is to try to reactivate the possibilities of a peaceful — a peace settlement between Khartoum and some of the rebels in Darfur that would allow the internally displaced people from Darfur to start returning to their homes.

So we’ve been very active on this issue. It may not have received the attention in the press that some of the other issues have, but we are spending a lot of time trying to make sure that we make progress and that the people of Darfur are able to return to their homes and live in peace.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, first, experience — part and parcel of our history, of our past experience here in Germany is obviously the Shoah. And out of that comes an everlasting responsibility for the safety and security of the state of Israel. If you like, this has been the (inaudible) of every German government, ever since the Federal Republic came into being, and it will always be that case.

As regards genocide all over the world, we have an international responsibility that we need to shoulder here. And here, too, we work very closely together. We, all of us, have made the experience I think along the way that this quite often takes much longer to resolve than one would like it to be and can be satisfied about.

But military intervention alone, without any political framework that we put on these issues, is also not always successful. We’ve made that experience, as well. This is why the European Union — actually during the EU-Africa Summit established very close links with the African Union, trying also to win over African countries to shoulder their responsibility or helping them shoulder their responsibility, for example by providing them with the necessary material, the equipment, but also through political discussions.

I think that due to the experience we’ve made over the years as European Union members that we were able after the Second World War to live together peacefully. We have an obligation not only to create peace within Europe, because we’ve been able to do that, but to actually share with others the knowledge how we managed to get that to happen. Dignity of man is inviolable. This is what is inscribed in the German constitution. And this goes not only for the Germans, not only for the Europeans, but for every human being all over the world. It means we can solve problems of this kind. We as Germans, after the Second World War, have made an experience that was certainly not a matter of course. The Allies actually extended a helping hand to us, to our neighbor France, the United Kingdom, but also the United States of America. We need to share this experience in order to prevent further cases of tragedy occurring. And we will always be at your side, at the side of the Americans.

Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

END 11:12 A.M. (Local)

Source: The White House"

a court ruled that the "religion" section on national identity cards can be left blank

TO BE NOTED: From the Guardian:

"Egypt's step towards freedom of belief

A court ruling that Egyptians will no longer be forced to pick from three approved religions is a crucial victory for equal rights

Comments (14)

• 
• • Brian Whitaker
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 March 2009 15.30 GMT
  • Article history

Egypt took a small but important step towards freedom of belief and equal rights yesterday when a court ruled that the "religion" section on national identity cards can be left blank.

In 1995 the Egyptian government began introducing computerised ID cards which forced everyone to identify themselves as belonging to one of the three "heavenly" religions: Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Cards could not be issued to anyone who refused to accept this, with the result that they effectively became non-citizens, unable to work legally, study beyond secondary school, vote, operate a bank account, obtain a driver's licence, buy and sell property, collect a pension, or travel.

The practice of restricting religion on ID cards to three officially approved choices had no basis in Egyptian law but was derived from the interior ministry's own (possibly erroneous) interpretation of Islamic teaching. It was challenged in the courts by several members of the Baha'i faith, which is thought to have around 2,000 followers in Egypt.

The Baha'i originated in Iran during the 19th century and by the early 20th century also had a flourishing community in Egypt.

Although the Baha'i faith is often regarded as a heretical offshoot of Islam, the Egyptian community was initially tolerated, but its position worsened in the 1950s – partly because of its accidental connections with Israel. In 1868, after being banished from his native Persia, the founder of the faith, Baha'u'llah, was exiled with his family and a small band of followers to the Turkish penal colony of Acre. As a result of this, the faith's international headquarters was established in the Acre/Haifa area, which later became part of Israel.

In the 1960s, President Nasser issued a decree which, in effect, withdrew state recognition from the Baha'i community and confiscated their property. Nasser's decree was reaffirmed by the supreme court in 1975 in a ruling which said that only the three "revealed" religions were protected by the constitution: the Baha'is were entitled to their beliefs but practice of the Baha'i faith was a "threat to public order" and therefore fell outside the constitutional protection for freedom of religion.

Yesterday's victory by the Baha'is in the supreme administrative court appears to mark the end of a five-year battle over the ID cards, since there is no route for further appeals by the Islamist lawyers who have been fighting them since the government dropped out.

"The significance of [yesterday's] decision goes far beyond the direct remedy it provides for hundreds of Baha'i Egyptians who have been the immediate victims of this arbitrary and discriminatory government policy," said Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. "This final ruling is a major victory for all Egyptians fighting for a state where all citizens must enjoy equal rights regardless of their religion or belief."

Even so, there are likely to be continuing problems for Egyptian Christians, some of whom are recorded as Muslims on their ID cards against their will, while others try unsuccessfully to change their card after converting from Islam to Christianity. Officials often refuse on the grounds that the state cannot condone "apostasy".

Egypt is not alone in recording religion on ID cards – many countries do it, though it is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. It can also lead to discrimination when the holder is required to show it and in civil conflicts – Lebanon and Iraq, for example – it can put lives at risk.

As a United Nations special rapporteur noted in 2004:

The mention of religion on an identity card is a controversial issue and appears to be somewhat at variance with the freedom of religion or belief that is internationally recognised and protected. Moreover, even supposing that it was acceptable to mention religion on an identity card, it could only be claimed that the practice had any legitimacy whatsoever if it was non-discriminatory: to exclude any mention of religions other than Islam, Christianity or Judaism would appear to be a violation of international law.

Nine years ago, Greece had to remove religion from its ID cards to comply with EU rules on separation between church and state.

In Lebanon last month the interior minister issued a directive allowing citizens to have any reference to their religion removed from ID cards or civil registry records. Before that, everyone had been compelled to declare their allegiance to one of the 18 recognised faiths in Lebanon – contrary to the official policy of trying to eliminate sectarianism after the civil war.

Nadim Houry, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, who is based in Lebanon, said:

This is a step in the right direction, but the government needs to take the next step and ensure that all Lebanese can have access to personal status laws that are not religiously based and provide for equal treatment. Otherwise all Lebanese will continue to be forced to be officially members of specific religions and subject to their laws on key issues like marriage and inheritance."

"I might draw a parallel between the Middle East and the India/Pakistan situation. "

Nicholas Kristof with a good post:

"The Gaza mess, and a question for readers

By Nicholas Kristof

One of the paradoxes of the Middle East is that all sides tend to be drawn to military solutions, even though they have a terrible record( TRUE ). History suggests that each side empowers its enemies when it turns to firepower( THE EXTREMES PROFIT ). Hamas’s reckless terror attacks and rocket attacks( THEY ARE WAR CRIMES ) gave strength to Israeli hard-liners, and if Bibi emerges as prime minister, it’ll be because of Hamas. Conversely, Hamas is a power in Gaza today largely because of Israeli excesses, including attacks on Fatah police infrastructure in earlier years — and of course Hezbullah was born after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.( HOW TRUE )

Granted, this is easy to say, and Israeli leaders feel enormous pressure to do something, anything, when their southern towns come under rocket attack( THAT'S FINE. BUT THIS RESPONSE IS WAY TOO BLUNT. ). But the first rule of government is not to make things worse, and I’m afraid that the assault on Gaza will indeed aggravate the situation( ME TOO ).

My concern is that the big losers will be Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority itself. When the Arabic cable channels are full of scenes of bloodshed from Gaza, Arab public opinion always turns against the moderates who are Israel’s best long-term hope for the future. I just wish that Israel tried as hard to bolster Abu Mazen( I BELIEVE THAT HE IS THE REAL DEAL. ) and the P.A. as it does to hurt Hamas.

I’ve been running around Cambodia, Thailand and Burma and so haven’t been able to write a column about Gaza, though I hope to soon. So let me throw out a question to blog readers. If I do write about the issue, I might draw a parallel between the Middle East and the India/Pakistan situation( I DID WHEN THIS OCCURRED. ). The idea would be that both India and Israel have suffered violent attacks that created enormous political pressure for a response, but that India — to its credit, and rather to my surprise — so far hasn’t taken military action after the Mumbai attacks because it knows that would make things worse. India has simply been a model of restraint, particularly with elections coming up in which Indian nationalists are screaming for a tougher approach, and it should get credit for that( I AGREE ). Granted, Israel has suffered tremendous provocations, and the democratic pressure for retaliation is enormous, but I wish Israel showed the same restraint as India, for the same reason( SO DO I. ). So what do you think: Is that a fair or meaningful comparison( YES. IT IS. )? Suggestions, thoughts?

"Saudi Arabia's foreign minister on Wednesday blamed Palestinian divisions for Israel's onslaught on Gaza"

This is interesting. From the NY Times:

"Saudi FM Criticizes Palestinians

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:33 a.m. ET

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Saudi Arabia's foreign minister on Wednesday blamed Palestinian divisions for Israel's onslaught on Gaza, a reflection of U.S.-allied Arab governments' anger at the Hamas militant group.

Saud al-Faisal made the comments at the opening of an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in the Egyptian capital, convened to try to put together a joint response by the deeply divided Arab nations to the Israeli offensive, which has killed more than 370 Palestinians and sparked outrage across the Middle East.

Pro-U.S. Arab countries -- Egypt, in particular -- have come under heavy criticism in widespread street protests, as well as from Iran, Hamas, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, for allegedly not doing enough to stop Israel or help Gazans. Officials and pro-government media in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have responded by blaming Hamas for provoking Israel and accusing the militant group of being a proxy promoting the power of regional rival Iran.

Saud's comments criticising the Palestinians were notable because in past Israeli offensives against Arabs, Arab leaders would rarely voice anything but heavy condemnations against Israel. Saud stopped short of directly criticising Hamas at a time when Israeli bombs are killing Gazans -- but it was clear from his talk of ''Palestinian divisions'' that his words were directed at the militant group, which took over the Gaza Strip in 2007 in a fierce battle against loyalists of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

''This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership speaking in one voice,'' Saud said at the league meeting's opening.

''We are telling our Palestinian brothers that your Arab nation cannot extend a real helping hand if you don't extend your own hands to each other with love,'' he said.

The Mideast has largely been divided in two camps -- pro-U.S. states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan on one side, and Syria, Iran and their allied militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah on the other. The U.S. allied camp has been deeply concerned over growing Iranian influence -- and worry that the Persian state wll gain a foothold in Gaza through Hamas, which gets significant financial backing from Tehran. Israel says its offensive aims to halt Hamas rocket fire into its territory.

But the popular anger over the Israeli bombardment has put the heat on Egypt and its alllies. Egypt this week turned to Turkey -- a regional rival of Iran with close ties to Israel -- to put together an initiative to end the Gaza fighting.

The Arab League foreign ministers Wednesday were reviewing the plan. The initiative calls for an immediate, unconditional halt to the Israeli assault, followed by a long-term truce between Hamas and Israel, and international monitors to guarantee the truce and the opening of border crossings into Gaza, which Israel has kept largely sealed since 2007.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Wednesday to promote the plan. Erdogan headed next for Jordan.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa expressed frustration with Arab and Palestinian divisions, saying their weakness has ''led to this disregard of the Arabs'' internationally. ''We are all in one boat, riddled with holes, and only our cohesion can save us,'' he said.

Egypt has been criticized because it has kept closed its Rafah border crossing into Gaza, the territory's only access to the outside world that does not run through Israel. Egypt says it cannot open Rafah as long as Abbas' Palestinian Authority is not in charge there, but critics accuse it of helping Israel's suffocating economic blockade. Egypt has let in some humanitarian supplies since the Israeli offensive began Saturday.

On Wednesday, some 1,000 lawyers marched in the southern Egyptian city of Assiut, demanding Egypt expel the Israeli ambassador from Cairo and stop exporting natural gas to Israel. In downtown Cairo, several thousand protesters were dispersed by security forces, who chased them through the streets and arrested a number of them."

It's clear that al-Faisal wants Hamas to accept a truce now. It also seems that he isn't willing to back them to the hilt, due to Hamas being more allied with Saudi Arabia's enemies. He doesn't want Hamas coming out of this war stronger. It's my fear that they will if they simply survive. I also think that the price of oil and the world economy figures into his statement, but that's just me.