In good ol' election year 2008, there were about 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers. Candidate Obama promised to double that number by 2011. A whole year later, his 2010 budget is out and it calls for "9,000 Americans enrolled in the Peace Corps by the end of FY 2012 and 11,000 by the end of FY 2016." Epic fail.
Okay, technically he hasn't failed yet. He has until Dec. 31st, 2011 to turn things around. It's not impossible, but it's also not likely.
At least the promise was good. The Peace Corps has a long track record of helping people on an impressive scale in pursuing their goals of spreading technology and cultural understanding. Those rare times that criticism is leveled against the organization tend to be textbook examples of baseless bias (for example, Nixon claimed it was just a loophole for draft-dodgers, and a Colombian urban legend claims it was Peace Corps volunteers who first created cocaine from coca leaves).
Obama supports doubling the program as part of his efforts to make America popular in the international community. That overreaching goal is a little silly (It's better to be right than popular), but I can't fault the expansion of the Peace Corps itself and Americans doing substantial good seems like a good way to drum up international goodwill.
Overall, his promise was commendable but his failure isn't. Kinda the reverse of his national security promises.
Showing posts with label international. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care III
Here are links to the first and second articles in the Apples to Apples series.
FactCheck.org, an institution I greatly support, has gotten into the survival rate issue. Previously I've been criticizing the comparison of health care systems via life expectancy and infant mortality rates while promoting survival rates for specific ailments as a better comparison of systems. FactCheck has taken it upon themselves to criticize straight survival rate numbers.
They start by conceding the obvious difference in the stats: "Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average," they say. "But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. […] survival rates among the uninsured were [&hellip] similar to Europe[.] […] Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured."
That initially looks pretty good for the US status quo, but this is a comparison of the USA to Europe, not to socialized medicine. When comparing cancer survival rates from the USA to Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba (all nations with single-payer government health coverage systems) we come up even or low pretty consistently. (Except with prostate cancer, which is apparently more of a money-maker for doctors than a major harm to public health.)
Also, early detection campaigns can distort a nation's survival rate numbers; catching cancer early rather than waiting for more serious symptoms means you're treating a weaker form of the cancer. Even with identical health care systems, early detection means a better survival rate. Thus, societal differences can distort the comparison of health care systems. Europe isn't big on cancer screenings, and neither are the American uninsured. That explains pretty well why the lower tier of Europe and uninsured Americans doesn't really compare to the higher tier of care enjoyed by socialized medicine and the American insured.
As their dedication to non-partisanship demands, FactCheck.org refuses to take sides on the debate overall. Survival rates do make the USA look much better than life expectancy and infant mortality statistics do -- we have great survival rates overall. Also, it doesn't bode well for the public option when it's current American counterpart, Medicare, is more like being uninsured than well-covered. Thus, these points could be used to argue against the public option before the legislature. On the other hand, insured Americans essentially tie the four socialized medicine nations mentioned suggesting that a socialized medicine system would mean top-tier coverage for all. "There's no way to know!" is the unspoken FactCheck theme.
What would be ideal is a statistical analysis of deeply similar cases in different nations. Great collections of parallel case studies would give a good comparison view of the systems. But I haven't seen any sign that anyone has done that. So the job is to derive what conclusions we can from the information given.
The big thing that strikes me hardest is cancer survival rates: the USA is the worldwide best at surviving breast and prostate cancer [source], but FactCheck explains that away as powerful early detection campaigns. Which makes sense. That leaves me without any way to guess which nation has the best cancer treatment.
That leaves the pro-US-system argument heavily relying on a sentence from Wikipedia of all places: "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." [source] Okay, technically it refers to a study in the cardiovascular medicine journal Circulation, but I haven't actually read that article. It's a thin strand to cling to. Maybe, despite my confident facade, I really don't know who has the best health care system.
One of the Wikipedia footnotes links to this article, gives a brief analysis of some of these same points, followed by a great and universal principle that I shall now steal as the beginning this article's conclusion: "The available data often do not provide clear answers." That being the case, isn't a diversity of approaches the best way to determine the best approach? The USA should remain unique until it's system is proven inferior. Since such proof remains elusive, don't fix anything.
FactCheck.org, an institution I greatly support, has gotten into the survival rate issue. Previously I've been criticizing the comparison of health care systems via life expectancy and infant mortality rates while promoting survival rates for specific ailments as a better comparison of systems. FactCheck has taken it upon themselves to criticize straight survival rate numbers.
They start by conceding the obvious difference in the stats: "Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average," they say. "But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. […] survival rates among the uninsured were [&hellip] similar to Europe[.] […] Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured."
That initially looks pretty good for the US status quo, but this is a comparison of the USA to Europe, not to socialized medicine. When comparing cancer survival rates from the USA to Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba (all nations with single-payer government health coverage systems) we come up even or low pretty consistently. (Except with prostate cancer, which is apparently more of a money-maker for doctors than a major harm to public health.)
Also, early detection campaigns can distort a nation's survival rate numbers; catching cancer early rather than waiting for more serious symptoms means you're treating a weaker form of the cancer. Even with identical health care systems, early detection means a better survival rate. Thus, societal differences can distort the comparison of health care systems. Europe isn't big on cancer screenings, and neither are the American uninsured. That explains pretty well why the lower tier of Europe and uninsured Americans doesn't really compare to the higher tier of care enjoyed by socialized medicine and the American insured.
As their dedication to non-partisanship demands, FactCheck.org refuses to take sides on the debate overall. Survival rates do make the USA look much better than life expectancy and infant mortality statistics do -- we have great survival rates overall. Also, it doesn't bode well for the public option when it's current American counterpart, Medicare, is more like being uninsured than well-covered. Thus, these points could be used to argue against the public option before the legislature. On the other hand, insured Americans essentially tie the four socialized medicine nations mentioned suggesting that a socialized medicine system would mean top-tier coverage for all. "There's no way to know!" is the unspoken FactCheck theme.
What would be ideal is a statistical analysis of deeply similar cases in different nations. Great collections of parallel case studies would give a good comparison view of the systems. But I haven't seen any sign that anyone has done that. So the job is to derive what conclusions we can from the information given.
The big thing that strikes me hardest is cancer survival rates: the USA is the worldwide best at surviving breast and prostate cancer [source], but FactCheck explains that away as powerful early detection campaigns. Which makes sense. That leaves me without any way to guess which nation has the best cancer treatment.
That leaves the pro-US-system argument heavily relying on a sentence from Wikipedia of all places: "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." [source] Okay, technically it refers to a study in the cardiovascular medicine journal Circulation, but I haven't actually read that article. It's a thin strand to cling to. Maybe, despite my confident facade, I really don't know who has the best health care system.
One of the Wikipedia footnotes links to this article, gives a brief analysis of some of these same points, followed by a great and universal principle that I shall now steal as the beginning this article's conclusion: "The available data often do not provide clear answers." That being the case, isn't a diversity of approaches the best way to determine the best approach? The USA should remain unique until it's system is proven inferior. Since such proof remains elusive, don't fix anything.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care II
My first Apples to Apples post is here.
Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:
Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?
Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.
Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:
- the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.
- We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.
- much of Europe treats babies born before 26 weeks' gestation who later die as miscarriages rather than infant deaths.
- Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive, thus disqualifying smaller babies from infant mortality numbers.
- Along the same lines, Canada, Austria and Germany only count babies weighing at least a pound as live births.
- many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. About half of infant mortality in the USA takes place in that same one-day period.
Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?
Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Obameter #174: Speaking to Islam
Dang, that's a good speech!
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)