Remarks by U.S. President George W. Bush at Concert Noble
Here the policy speech that President Bush gave in Brussels at the start of his present European tour. Policy is best understood when viewed – or read – in full.
In my view, this was a good speech.
He placed the Middle East peace processes squarely in the centre also of the US-European relationship, and noted its centrality also to the wider efforts for stability and democracy in the wider Middle East. He was clear in what he asked of the Palestinians, but equally clear on what he asked of the Israelis.
In the spirit of previous speeches, he talked explicitly about the need for political reforms in Saudi Arabia, and wished that Egypt would take a lead in the development of democracy in the region.
And he called for Europeans to help with the state-building work in Iraq – ”the regions youngest democracy.”
It is also worth noting that he wanted issues of democracy and the rule of the law to be put at the hearth of our dialogue with Russia.
In contrast to policy pronouncements from Washington in the recent past, the issue of fighting terrorism came only towards the end of the speech. This certainly did not downgrade the importance of these issues, but indirectly implied that there are other issues that needs to be tackled and that can also give their contribution to the fight against global terrorism.
In short, a good start to an important visit.
Freedom and democracy creates peace, yes. Sweden on the brink of civil war?
No, but we will have a general election in September of next year.
That’s freedom and democracy.
And all the other issues? Does representative democracy really work fine in Sweden, and much better than in Spain, Denmark and so on?
Wish I could figure out the difference, and what Sweden has done so well. Socialdemocracy at its best, maybe.
I fail to see what these somewhat unstructured thoughts on Social Democrats or others in Sweden have to do with President Bush speech in Brussels, but perhaps I have missed something.
This is good. We can finally restore our relations with the Europeans.
All we really have to do is remind them that we’re not the only country affected by terrorism.
The President of US stated:
”The Palestinian people deserve a government that is representative, honest and peaceful.”Mr Bildt claimed:
”He was clear in what he asked of the Palestinians,”Does the Arabs ask for, or deserve a Holocaust denier as the next clan-leader, who’s political party speaks of the destruction of Israel along with all the Jews, while imprisoning and signing death penalties against it’s own civilians, and PA invoking sought after terrorists in the ”security brigades”, while brainwashing a new generation of arabic underage children into the racist hatred by own ruled schools, mosques and media of ”the joy” in freely becoming walking bombs in terrorist acts? Should it be rewarded?
Your comment?
According to Mr. Bildt, general elections are enough to create democracy and freedom, but he seems to underestimate the importance of referendums in order to disarm tension.
Iraq, Denmark and many other European countries will soon, above elections, have referendums on their new contstitutions, and it’s easy to figure out why. The Swedish people, however, isn´t given that opportunity. We have to fight for it.
It is bad if Mr. Bildt doesn´t recognize the very foundation of democracy, or not have got patience to let people decide themselves or haven´t confidence in his own people. Chances to be elected president of the EU seem small on those premises…
Swedish politics differs in its democratic approach, maybe because it has adopted manners of dictators flirted along with for more than half a century now. Political parties of today stand united against the peoples’ demand of referendums on EU, nuclear power/research, immigration and more.
From such observations it is possible to quantify the chanses of a general upprising, let it be a western country or a more fragile one in the Mid East.
I think Similev should read the Presidents remarks on Israel and Palestine carefully, and also note the interviews in which he has expressed his respect for the leadership of Abu Mazen in Palestine.
He might note that the President is explicit in critizising the settlement policy and in calling for a Palestine state with a contigious territory that allows it to function.
To my knowledge, this hasn’t been said so explicitly by him before. I think it reflects not the least a recognition of the attempts to build a democratic state now undertaken by the Palestinians.
On Sven K, I just want to say that I don’t see referendums as a foundation of Swedish democracy. We are and should remain a representative democracy.
Referendums can certainly be used in special cases, but they are not the foundation of our democracy.
”and also note the interviews in which he has expressed his respect for the leadership of Abu Mazen”Didn’t find that one, infact i didn’t find the name Mazen anywhere in the speech recomended. (What I otherwise think of using that kind of . ”Abu Mazen in Palestine” lanugage.)
”I think Similev should read the Presidents remarks”Please, it’s Simulev, and I did, then I continued to read your conclusions, and therefore ask you once again, if you think that the president, with this comment: ”Palestinian leaders must confront and dismantle terrorist groups, fight corruption, encourage free enterprise and establish democracy” infact is in a support to a Holocaust denier, who’s legacy is a corrupted dictator regime that continue to uses terror and continues to kill it’s own subjects? How long will such a claimed support last? Doesn’t the Arabs deserve something else and better? Isn’t it that what the President meant?
The use of referendums doesn’t contradict representative democracy, neither in the US, nor in Switzerland, Denmark, Spain and so on. Why in Sweden?
Unfortunately Mr. Bildt haven’t got the answer, advocating less power to the people of Europe, as it seems, reflecting pure socialism or something worse.
Referendums are useful and necessary tools when politicians begin to diminish their own people in favour of personal power. EU is likely to cause international tension and chaos if a leaderstyle of that sort will be adopted again.
Europe, Sweden as well, may need international support in its efforts to clean up the past. Then time will eventually come to develop partnership for true democracy, freedom and peace.
A representative democracy will not become ”more” democratic by randomly introducing referenda on various issues, tying the hands of the very same representatives of the people that were recently elected to govern.
Again, the very foundation of democracy is peoples’ will. Therefore decisions made by our representatives must reflect the peoples’ opinon, or there is oppression.
Western democracies can do better in this respect than those bluffing systems claiming they are peoples’ democracies, some even excluding democracy in advantage to the laws of God, or advantage to the EU as predicted by many analysts.
It might be worth emphasizing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
”Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,..”
If the will of peoples’ majority is ignored by its representatives causing damage to the human rigths, there is oppression by this UN definition, a carte blanche for uprising.
(See also the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.)
That misbehavior seems to apply to Sweden and other EU-countries as well, where governments aren´t tuning in the peoples’ will by referendums, polls or other means.
Mr. Buch might have a hard time getting appropriate partners to join his democratic agenda in order to save the world from tyranny.
Care to elaborate?
U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode[...]”As he [President Bush] told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ”We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.’”[...]
Sven_K: On the referrendum issue.
First of all, the reason for representative democracy is that decisions needs to be taken be people who have the time and the wits to gain profound deeper knowledge on the issues that are being decided upon. With everyone having a say on everything the society stops functioning, we then get more or less a ”polish parliament” (Polsk Riksdag) where every decision is regurgitated over and over again and the decision is reached long after the issue is obsolete or have become a non-issue.
Secondly:
Referrendums in Sweden are strictly ”advisory”..and even though we have yet to see a Swedish government go against a referrendum it’s not unlikely to see it with for instance the old referrendum on the closing down of the nuclear power plants….something I think we all can agree was a fatal error and which now is hampering Swedish industries, adding to global warming and exposing the nation to potentially dangerous situations with a total collapse of electricity supply.
And…a referrendum held aside from the general elections makes it not less nor more democratic than adding the issue into the general election where all parties are free to add it to their agendas. Especially since we’ve already have held a referrendum on the membership in the EU…let’s call it quits and move on for once.
I’m sure you’d be raving about referrendums about taxes in Sweden if we’d have one. According to the latest surveys there’s still a majority that don’t want to lower the taxes. I bet you think we should hold a referrendum on that issue? No?
Minor correction… In a Swedish referendum 1955 83% voted to continue driving on the left. A few years later this silly decision was corrected by our Riksdag. Since September 1967 we’ve been driving on the right side in Sweden, like in most countries.