But there is no doubt that President Obama’s acceptance speech – which was as philosophical as it was policy-orientated – had many references to Iran in it, both directly and implicitly, aimed at both the Iranian people and the theocratic regime.
One of the two times Obama explicitly singled out Iran was on the nuclear issue, if only to stress the importance of countries to not only follow international law – in this instance, the Non-Proliferation Treaty – but to also ensure that such international agreements are followed and respected by all nations. Obama continued:
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.What is interesting to note is that while Obama did not mention Iran in his litany of countries that “brutalize their own people,” he used the word "engagement" in his very next sentence. The term “engagement,” of course, has been used almost exclusively vis-à-vis Iranian diplomacy during the first eleven months of the Obama administration. It appears that this was a subtle (if not coy) way of putting the Iranian regime on notice. After all, there are no impending foreign policy crises with respect to Sudan, the Congo, or Myanmar which the United States is using diplomacy to resolve.
President Obama addressed human rights more directly – and more forcefully – later into his speech. Possibly framing his comments in light of repeated accusations of “foreign meddling” coming from the Islamic Republic, Obama rejected that human rights are “Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development,” saying:
I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.If there was a reaching out to the Green movement in President Obama's acceptance speech, this declaration that the United States is "on their side" was it. In fact, CNN reports that Obama departed from his prepared speech, replacing the original line "hope and history are on their side" to the what he said in Oslo, that "these movements...have us on their side" (emphasis added).
[…]
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Nonetheless, President Obama's commitment as commander-in-chief is to ensure U.S. security, and so it is not surprising that he has thus far put the Iranian nuclear issue ahead of democratization and human rights. Attempting to balance these two seemingly conflicting policy goals, the President's comments towards the end of his speech seemed to be the most specifically tailored towards Iran of all, essentially acknowledging the growing chorus of notable voices who have called on him to at the very least couple his continued engagement with the Islamic Republic with a more forceful condemnation of its human right abuses:
The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.While the President may have laid the groundwork for a series of new targeted sanctions, the Obama administration's policy towards Iran may indeed be nearing a tipping point. There has been frequent talk in Washington of the competing "nuclear" and "democracy" clocks ticking inside Iran: the former referring to the amount of time Iran is away from achieving "breakthrough" nuclear capacity, and the latter estimating the number of years Iran is from democratizing and abandoning the often-provocative role it plays on the international stage. So far, the nuclear clock has undoubtedly been ahead, explaining why Western policymakers can ill afford to "wait" for a more pragmatic Iranian actor to emerge.
But as Iran enters the sixth month of its post-election crisis and with all indications that the regime's problems are only to worsen, the so-called "democracy clock" has undoubtedly been turned forward. It is impossible to tell if and when it will overtake the "nuclear clock," but if that does occur, the United States must be careful of supporting an illegitimate and repressive regime as a new government and civil society begins to take shape. The lessons of 1953 tell of the consequences all too well.
_________________
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech is embedded in its entirety below:
