Video and Transcript: US Ambassador on "Fragile" Iraq

Yesterday, as we were focused on events in Iran, news came through of the deadliest attack in Iraq this year, with 80 people dying in a suicide truck bombing in Kirkuk.

That incident may put into perspective the appearance on the US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill, in Washington two days earlier. Hill confirmed the interests of Iran and Syria in Iraq while striking a delicate balance: the two countries contributed to Iraq’s insecurity, but dialogue with them was important to an Iraqi future.

Meanwhile, thanks to the engagement policy of the US, Hill said, the dialogue among different factions in Iraq had played a significant role in the overall downward trend of violence. Hill added, though, “But I don’t want to sound Pollyannish about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day.”



AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s a pleasure to be here and not talking about North Korea. (Laughter.) That was a preemptive strike. But I’m back for a few days of consultations and some personal travel, and I will be getting back to Baghdad next week.

Obviously, this is an important month because we’re getting to the – one of the major milestones of the security agreement that is the out-of-the-city milestone where our combat forces will be out of the remaining urban areas in Iraq. It’s an important moment because some – because as we go forward with the security agreement, we will also be moving ahead on something called the Strategic Framework Agreement, and this is an agreement which will really govern our relationship for, we hope, decades to come, that will involve our educational exchanges, economic relations, various political exchanges, things that we work on internationally.

So we want to make this Strategic Framework Agreement really the essence of the relationship, and to get to that we need to get through the remaining elements of the security agreement, and certainly the one dealing with – the provision dealing with our combat forces out of the urban areas is obviously a key element of it.

(Inaudible) – Libby.

QUESTION: I have a question about Iran, actually. Your predecessor met with the Iranians several times about issues specifically related to Iraq. What do you anticipate your role being with the Iranians as far as your post now in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s hard to say. Frankly, the issue hasn’t come up as of now. I’ve only been there a couple of months. Iran has a great interest in Iraq. We certainly feel their interest in Iraq. They’re a historical neighbor of Iraq and obviously those two countries will have a relationship going forward. And as I said at my confirmation hearing, I think it would be best if Iran did all it could do to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor.

QUESTION: Has there been a change in Iranian activity in the last few days following the elections and the tension –

AMBASSADOR HILL: With respect to Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah.

AMBASSADOR HILL: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Is Syria being more helpful in terms of Iraq? Have you noticed a change?

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think, you know, obviously it’s – this is – Syria’s relationship with Iraq has gone through some ups and downs in recent years. Obviously, we are interested in Syria and Iraq having a better relationship. We are – we have addressed that issue with the Iraqis and we will continue to do so and see if we can be helpful. And as the Iraqi Prime Minister said to me, we’ll try to coordinate what we’re doing with Syria. But making Iraq have a better relationship with its neighbors is a key element of what we’re trying to do in that country.

QUESTION: Have you noticed fewer foreign fighters, though, crossing over from Syria?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I can’t really gauge it in a matter of days or weeks. I think we have to take a broader view of what that is.

QUESTION: About the CENTCOM visit to Syria –

AMBASSADOR HILL: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: About the CENTCOM visit –

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I’m not in a position to discuss the CENTCOM visit --

QUESTION: But your impression?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to – I’m not here to talk about Syria relations – we have other people to do that – except insofar as it relates to Iraq. And certainly, the Iraqis have welcomed our interest in a dialogue with Syria and have expressed an interest in making sure that we’re coordinated, and we are.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the renewed violence over the last couple of months in Iran? It definitely seems a concerted effort --

QUESTION: Iraq.

QUESTION: -- by the Sunni extremists to go after the Shia. They’ve been quiet so far – the Shia – not retaliating, but there is a huge concern that there would be – if there was like a major bombing like Najaf or something that there would be a huge renewed sectarian round of violence.

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think if you look at overall levels of violence in Iraq, you’ll see an overall trending downward. And this trending downward includes some of the events that took place in recent weeks. I must say, as someone who is new there and when I see a couple of rockets hit the green zone, those are a couple of rockets too many for my taste. But people who have had the benefit of more time there always tell me it’s nothing compared to last year. So when you see the aggregate numbers put together by the U.S. military, you see there is an overall trending down.

Now, the real question is whether some of these attacks – in one case, an attack on an Iranian tourist, actually – whether these attacks on obvious Shiite populations are ones that are going to be reciprocated. And certainly, you’ve seen some attacks on Sunnis. Whether it’s concerted or not, it’s obviously, in our view, an attempt to stimulate tensions. And we’re pleased to say that it has not had a desired effect.

The overall level of violence is – continues to be low. We don’t see any recreation of militia groups. There are still militia groups out there, but there’s certainly no growth in that pattern. Whether we continue to have this – these positive trends I think is hard to say, except that we work very hard to make sure that there is dialogue among the various political interlocutors in the country. We continue to do what we can to help people get together.

That is a country that’s gone through six years of very, very painful violence, where everybody has lost a loved one. And one never wants to predict when people are sick of this sort of thing, but since arriving there in the last couple of months, I do believe that people are trying to work their way through a political process.

QUESTION: But you don’t see – I mean, the violence is down, but the last kind of – couple of years of violence seemed to be more evidence from the insurgency and from al-Qaida-type – you know, al-Qaida in Iraq things. You don’t see a renewed level of sectarian tensions that gives you pause that there might be a --

AMBASSADOR HILL: No, I mean – no, we don’t, actually. What we do see are an anticipation of parliamentary elections which are now expected to be in January. We do see a lot of jockeying for political positions. We see Shiite parties reaching out to have a Sunni partner and to have a Kurdish partner. These sorts of things are actually healthy. So in general, what we see is a tendency to want to work with a political – within the political system. But I don’t want to sound Pollyannish about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day.

QUESTION: Can I ask you – your predecessor talked about this a lot, whether the violence in Iraq goes to the gains that you’ve seen over the past year are irreversible or not. And he would describe it as fragile, but reversible. Do you share that assessment? Do you think we’ve kind of gone over the hump on that?

And then on Mosul, where a lot of the more recent violence has been taking place, do you still think that U.S. troops will be able to pull out of Mosul on the 30th without any problems?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, what I know is that we’re going to comply fully with our obligations under the security agreement. I think – we signed that agreement and we will absolutely comply fully with it, and that means pulling all combat forces out of the – out of the cities. And I think what’s important to understand is that in most cities in Iraq, our combat forces are already out of the city, so this is not some brand new model that we’re not sure how it’s going to work. But to some extent, we’ve left the best for last – that is Baghdad and Mosul.

I was up in Mosul a few weeks ago. And to be sure, it’s a city that has a lot of tension in it. To be sure, there are various groups, whether it’s the Kurdish population there or the Sunni or – and I want to emphasize this as well – Christian groups that are – that have concerns about what life will be like in the future.

Again, I think the way forward is through political dialogue. I met with members of the provincial council. I met with the Kurdish delegation that is continuing to boycott the provincial council. I met with the governor. I met with some others. And I think we just have to keep doing that. I mean, whether this is irreversible, I think to some extent, will depend on the people themselves, whether they’re prepared to continue to work at this. I have no doubt that Iraq is a better place for the fact there’s less violence, and I think that’s an insight most Iraqis get or have every day.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any contingency plan in case the violence escalates after withdrawal?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to discuss contingency plans. I’m not in charge of contingency plans with respect to security. What I am involved in is to make sure that we are complying with the security agreement. This is something that we want to do and must do, and it’s something that’s expected of us.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Egypt has just appointed an ambassador. Have you had any indications that Saudi Arabia might be ready to do this?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Not yet. Obviously, this step by the Egyptians to send an ambassador is most welcome, and look forward to being there to welcome him or her. I think it’s – we really want to see Iraq reattach to its neighbors, as my comments earlier on Syria would suggest. And so we believe it’s in everyone’s interest to be present in Iraq, present diplomatically. We believe it’s in everyone’s interest, whether they’re interested for economic purposes or for regional stability, and anyone with an interest in regional stability, anyone with an interest in Iraq’s sovereignty and development as a healthy democratic state should be there.

QUESTION: Do you have a sense of what’s holding the Saudis back or --

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I don’t. You’ll have to ask someone who lives and works on Saudi Arabia.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on President Obama, did he ask King Abdullah to send the --

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I’m not in a position to comment on what went on between the President and President Abdullah -- King Abdullah.

QUESTION: Can you – I don’t know whether you’ve been to Kirkuk or not. This – any resolution or any advancement of the problem of solving Kirkuk, and also the oil revenue sharing?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I think there has been some – there’s a lot of discussion within Iraq on oil revenue sharing, and – not so much revenue sharing, but overall exploitation of oil. I know the government in Baghdad has had renewed and, I think, positive discussions with the Kurdish regional authority on this matter. I think you saw some fruits of this just a few weeks ago when oil from Kurdish areas was exported out through the main pipeline and where the revenue sharing went according to the UN formula of 17 percent.

I know that the Iraqi Government is working very hard to see what can be done to boost oil production, and they are in touch directly with international oil companies on this. There has been a lot of discussion about where the so-called hydrocarbons law is. And if you ask various political leaders in Iraq, you get different answers as to the potential for getting this law through the parliament. Right now, I must say the discussion in the parliament is very much geared to getting an election law through so that parliamentary elections can take place as scheduled on January 16th.

Yeah.

QUESTION: As we sit here now, how many U.S. troops are left in the cities, and specifically how many in Baghdad?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I would ask that you direct that question to the Pentagon. There are roughly 135,000 U.S. troops in the country, but as for their particular deployment, I’d direct that to the Pentagon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry. Ambassador, could I just make sure I got that straight? When you were asked about the Syrian fighters coming into Iraq, have you actually seen a diminishing of that number, or is it not yet clear?

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think it’s too soon to gauge the numbers, except to assure you that we track this issue very closely. And compared to, say, a year ago, there is a substantial – there are fewer such people coming over. Now whether there are fewer coming over because they understand the consequence of unlawful crossing of the border is greater now than it might have been in the past, that’s hard to say. But the specific question had to do with the recent discussions with Syrian authorities and whether there’s a change of a flow at this point. And I think in that case, it’s a little too soon to say.

QUESTION: But that was just last weekend, right?

AMBASSADOR HILL: The discussions with Syria were just last week, yeah. So it’s obviously a little early to talk about it.

Yes, ma’am, and then I’ll go to you.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Recently, there’s been some discussion with Turkey that this might be the year that the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) may give up arms and move into the political circle, or just give up violence, and U.S. is putting pressure on the Kurdish authorities as well as the central government. Can you clarify what is going on? Are you involved in the talks? Are you --

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I’m not in a position to discuss the – that process that you’re describing. I mean, this is really for our people who deal with Turkey. I will say that with respect to Iraq, Turkey is very active. Turkey has a number of economic projects underway in Iraq. They’ve been very much bolstering their relationship with Iraq.

And I know, having talked to Turkish visitors from Ankara, there’s a great deal of interest not only in the northern part of Iraq, but also in bolstering their relations with the Shiite part of the southern part of Iraq. So I see a Turkey that is increasingly interested in having a good relationship with Iraq, and we very much welcome this process.

Yeah.

QUESTION: President Obama’s speech in Cairo has produced a lot of new, renewed hopes for the Arabs of the region and for America in there – its policies in there. Today, can you reiterate for us and for the Arab audience that you are looking forward for the day when America leaves Iraq as one country, united and sovereign – I mean, united or not like what Vice President Biden in the past has looked for, a division of Iraq and into three – to three parts?

AMBASSADOR HILL: We are very interested in having a long-term and successful relationship with Iraq, and as our President laid out in a speech, we’re interested in a long-term and positive relationship with the entire region.

With respect to our relationship with Iraq, we understand – those of us who work on the issue understand that to have a long-term and successful relationship with Iraq, we have to be very respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. And so that is one of the real foundation points of that relationship. It’s reflected in the security agreement. It’s reflected in the strategic framework agreement which governs the non-security areas. So we are very respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. We’re very respectful of Iraqi territorial integrity, and respectful of Iraqi unity. And that’s been our policy and it’ll continue to be our policy. We will work very hard with Iraqi authorities – not to tell them what to do, but to express our views and to listen to their views. And I think it’s been especially – be important for a new ambassador to do a lot more listening than he does talking, and that’ll continue to be my role.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Iraq’s foreign ministry has requested the U.S. support move in the United Nations to get Iraq out from under Chapter 7, the UN Charter, and restore full sovereignty with no limitations remain from the past dictatorship and so forth. What’s the U.S. position on going ahead with that?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, the U.S., as you know, and the Security Council – there’s some, I think, eight or ten Security Council resolutions that deal with the so-called Chapter 7 issue. According to Article 25 of the security agreement, the one that deals with this issue of U.S. troops out of the cities, there’s an article, Article 25, that deals with the U.S. committing ourselves to assisting Iraq to get off Chapter 7. If you look at the Article 27, it refers specifically to our view that Iraq is no longer a regional threat to peace and security in the region. And on that basis, it’s our desire to help them get off Article 7.

Obviously, this also involves helping Iraq, as I mentioned before, work to have a better relationship with its neighbors. And we would like to see an Iraq-Kuwait relationship that continues to improve, and we will continue to be engaged in that.

QUESTION: Well, is the U.S. going to take any steps to actually do that in the Security Council?

AMBASSADOR HILL: We are working with – as we look to these reviews, we’re obviously in touch with our partners and we will see what steps we will take. Again, I don’t want to be stepping on the role that our people in New York play, Ambassador Rice and others. But we are – obviously, this is a time when we need to look at the review of the situation and make sure that we are complying with Article 25 of the security – of our security agreement with Iraq, but also working with our partners in the UN Security Council and also working with the UN Secretariat on this.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Iraqi Government says that it’s forming a committee to assess some of its prisons in allegations of overcrowding and prisoner abuses. Being that there will be some prisoners being transferred from U.S. troops to Iraqi prisons, could you tell me what involvement the United States has, if any, in the assessment of Iraqi prisons in regards to some of these allegations?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. We have – first of all, we have made a commitment, and this is also part of our security agreement, to transfer detainees from U.S. custody to Iraqi custody. We are working very closely with the Iraqi prison authorities both in terms of training and helping them with the refurbishment of prison facilities. Indeed, we just opened up a new facility, or a newly renovated facility, just last Saturday. In addition, I met with the minister of justice on Sunday about the issue of the status of the prisons and of their capacity to not only to receive prisoners but also to have a judicial system that has throughput, that is, gets the prisoners out with a – through a legal process to determine guilt or innocence. So this is a very key element of what we call rule of law initiatives at the embassy, and we are very much engaged on it.

And the rule of law initiative, where we have a number of personnel from the Justice Department, actually several hundred personnel from the Justice Department, including some 21 professional lawyers there, and it was for that reason that just the other day, or just two days ago, I met with Attorney General Eric Holder to really thank him for all the work that the Justice Department has been doing precisely on this issue.

QUESTION: Would any member of the United States personnel be a member of that committee or it’s a cooperation?

AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s cooperation.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: One more question on Iran. Do you still have concerns about the Iranians supplying parts for IEDs and contributing negatively to the security environment in Iran? We heard a lot about that in the last administration. What’s the –

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I think, obviously the security situation in Iraq could benefit from less trans-border shipments of various weaponry or explosives, and I think that goes for Iran as well.

QUESTION: What’s the level of current trans-border shipments?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I don’t want to characterize the level of it. I’d ask you to direct that to the Pentagon.

MR. CROWLEY: Just an indication of what we were talking about earlier, Chris’s next activity on his schedule is a phone call with Secretary Clinton, so we’ve got time for one more question.

QUESTION: On –

AMBASSADOR HILL: And I don’t know if Kim Jong-il is – (laughter).

QUESTION: We can talk about that at the next briefing. On corruption, I mean, that was also a big issue in the last administration. And now Maliki seems to have cracked down on corruption so much so that people believe – a lot of people inside Iraq are fearing that he’s using it as a kind of political intimidation. What is your (inaudible) on this situation?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I think a lot of countries in Iraq’s state of economic development have so-called capacity problems. And one element of capacity problems is a corruption problem. I think it’s healthy that Iraqis are talking about this and trying to address it.

To the extent that there’s concern about it being abused, I think that goes to the question of whether there are proper procedures in terms of what they’re doing in law and order, whether indictments are well-founded, whether there’s an effort to make sure that warrants are properly executed, et cetera. I think it continues to be something that we watch very closely and are in very close contact with the Iraqi authorities about.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

Obama in Cairo: Press Reactions

We're trying to guage some of the reaction in the Middle East and Iran to Obama's address in Cairo yesterday, and a quick look at the English websites of al-Jazeera and Press TV provides two sharply differing intrepretations of the Israeli reaction. Israel issued a short statement in response to the speech, and while al-Jazeera believes that it points to a 'welcoming' reaction from Israel, Press TV focuses on an apparent Israel 'snub' to Obama over settlements. One short statement, two very different responses. Both pieces are reproduced below.

Press TV is featuring Hezbollah's rejection of the Obama speech:

"We do not sense any real change regardless of the language of the speech because violence in the region is practiced first and foremost by Israel and by the US armies of occupation, and not by the people who resist," AFP quoted Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah as saying on Thursday.

Interestingly, a Hamas official is quoted "as saying that while the speech showed 'tangible change', it contained contradictions."

Al-Jazeera: Israel welcomes Obama speech

The Israeli government has welcomed Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world, saying it hoped the speech would bring a "new period of reconciliation" in the Middle East.

The government statement made no mention of the issue of settlements, after the US president used his speech in Cairo to reiterate his call for an end to Israeli construction on Palestinian land.

"We share President Obama's hope that the American effort heralds the opening of a new era that will bring an end to the conflict and to general Arab recognition of Israel as the nation of the Jewish people that lives in security and peace in the Middle East," the statement said.

"Israel is committed to peace and will do all it can to expand the circle of peace while considering its national interests, first and foremost being security," it said on Thursday after Obama's address.

'Naivety can be dangerous'

Obama devoted a large portion of his speech to the issue of Israel and the Palestinian, and it comes amid reports of deepening differences between the US and Israel on the expansion of settlements.The US president restated Washington's strong ties with Israel, calling on Muslims to recognise the Holocaust.

But Obama also used the term "Palestine", as he reiterated his call for a Palestinian state.

Danny Seaman, the director of Israel's Government Press Office, said the government backed Obama's message.

"All in all, it's not bad. I don't think there's anything we disagree with here," he said.

"The state of Israel isn't against reconciliation," he added, but warned against any moves that could "be used by the extremists to endanger Israel and endanger the peace process".

But Aliza Herbst, a 56-year-old resident of the West Bank settlement of Ofra, said Obama's "naivety can be dangerous".

"You can have your speechwriters find every good thing a Muslim has ever done. But more modern history is that the Muslim world is at war with the Western world," she told the Associated Press news agency.

Press TV: Israel snubs Obama's settlements demand

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has appealed to the US government to rethink its demand to curb Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Barak made the appeal while meeting with the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon on Thursday, Reuters reported.

US President Barack Obama highlighted the issue in a speech to the Muslim world in Egypt on Thursday, saying, “There can be no progress towards peace without a halt to such construction”.

Israel, however, responded that its security interests remained paramount.

"We share President Obama's hope that the American effort heralds the opening of a new era that will bring an end to the conflict and to general Arab recognition of Israel as the nation of the Jewish people that lives in security and peace in the Middle East," an official statement said.

"Israel is committed to peace and will do all it can to expand the circle of peace while considering its national interests, first and foremost being security," the statement claimed.

Based on the US-backed Roadmap peace plan Israel must end settlement constructions in the lands occupied during the 1967 war.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has snubbed the international and Obama's demand to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state and end the settlement activities in the Palestinian territories.

Video and Transcript: President Obama's Speech in Cairo (4 June)

Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Israel Re-Positions on Settlements, Two-State Solution
Latest Post: After the Obama Speech - Hamas Asks, “Is He Ready to Walk the Way He Talks?”
Related Post: Analysis of President Obama’s Speech in Cairo - The “Right Path” Runs Through Israeli Settlements



OBAMA: I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

Doctors Fighting Frontiers: British Medics Imprisoned in Sri Lanka, on Hunger Strike in Egypt

The wars may have ostensibly ended in Gaza and Sri Lanka, but the conflicts and hardships continue. As hundreds of thousands of residents languish in detention camps or endure a protracted siege, British medics trying to help also find themselves hindered --- and worse --- by Government officials.

In Sri Lanka, 26-year-old Damilvany Gnanakumar (pictured) is still held in an internment camp with civilians who have been told they cannot leave until the Government has "screened" for those who might be members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTEE). The British Foreign Office says it has been in contact with Sri Lankan Government, but Gnanakumar's family, dissatisfied at the lack of progress, decided to publicise the case, working with journalists from The Guardian of London.

On Tuesday, the brother of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa promised to speed up the legal process for Gnanakumar's release. Officials said they were "currently checking on Ms Gnanakumar's visa status and on how she had entered the country". Meanwhile, assurances were given by Piency Charles, in charge of the camps, that Gnanakumar was in good health.

In Egypt, three other British medics have been amongst nine people on hunger strike, protesting official barriers to their entry into Gaza. The trio had hoped to establish a cardiac surgery unit at Gaza City's al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, and to train medical students and junior doctors there. However, they have been held at the Rafah crossing since the beginning of May.

One of the three medics, Omar Mangoush, explained the decision to protest:

This is very important for us. There are loads of people with heart disease [in Gaza]. They can't get here [to Egypt], they can't get to Israel. If it's this hard for us to get to, how difficult is it for the Palestinians to get out?