SRP om USA's krig mod terror

Side 1

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard - Studieretningsprojekt 2014

USAʼs politiske udvikling i kampen mod terrorisme fra

2001-2014

SAMFUNDSFAG A, ENGELSK A

Side 2

ABSTRACT

This paper examines Americaʼs political commitment in the fight against terrorism from 2001 -

2014. ͏The ͏starting ͏point ͏for ͏the ͏assignment ͏is ͏an ͏account ͏of ͏America's ͏role ͏in ͏their ͏struggle against ͏terrorism, ͏which ͏will ͏outline ͏the ͏Bush ͏administration's ͏foreign ͏policy ͏and ͏then ͏the Obama administration's foreign policy. It then presents a theoretical structure of idealism and realism, ͏to ͏develop ͏an ͏understanding ͏of ͏the ͏mechanisms ͏tha͏t ͏can ͏b͏e ͏used ͏in ͏the ͏analysis ͏of international politics. To illustrate America's development in their "war on terror" two speeches by Barack Obama will be analyzed, one from 2009 and one from 2014. A comparison of the two speeches ͏will ͏be ͏made ͏in ͏order ͏to ͏cla͏rify ͏the ͏evolution ͏of ͏the ͏politica͏l͏ ͏stra͏t͏egy ͏regarding terrorism. Finally, there will be a discussion regarding whether it is possible for the US to avoid pursuing a realistic foreign policy. The discussion will͏ be based on the USʼ position as the only superpower in the world. In addition, it will be considered whether Obama can be described as a realist ͏or ͏idealist. ͏The ͏paper ͏concludes ͏that ͏Obama ͏leads ͏a ͏realistic ͏foreign ͏policy, ͏but ͏is ͏also inspired by idealism and therefore Ob͏ama can be described as a realist with ideals. Furthermore, Americaʼs unique ͏position ͏as ͏a superpower means that ͏the ͏political ͏strategy ͏against ͏terrorism must be based on that fact. This effectively hinders the possibility of pursuing any other foreign policy except a realistic policy, as the US is forced to defend its own interests to maintain their position as the only superpower in the world.

Side 3

INDHOLDSFORTEGN͏ELS͏E

1. INDLEDNING ............................................................................................................. 1

2. REDEGØRELSE – USAʼS ROLLE I KAMPEN MOD TERRORISME FRA 2001-2014 .......................... 2

2.1 – GEORGE W. BUSH (2001-2009) ...................................................................................................... 2

2.2 – BARACK OBAMA (2009-) ................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 – TEORIER INDEN FOR INTERNATIOAL POLITIK ............................................................................... 4

2.4 – IDEALISME .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 – REALISME ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3. RETORISK ANALYSE – ˮA NEW͏ BE͏GIN͏N͏ING͏ˮ OG͏ ˮSP͏EE͏CH͏ ON͏ ISISˮ ......................................... 6

3.1 - BARACK OBAMA: ˮA NEW BEGINNINGˮ͏ D. 4 JU͏NI 2͏009 .................................................................... 6

3.1.1 - KOMMUNIKATIONSSITUATIONEN ............................................................................................... 7

3.1.2 - ANALYSE AF APPELFORMER ........................................................................................................ 8

3.1.3 - RETORISKE VIRKEMIDLER .......................................................................................................... 10

3.2 - BARACK OBAMA: ˮSPEECH ON ISISˮ D. 10 SEPEMBER 2014 ............................................................ 11

3.2.1 - KOMMUNIKATIONSSITUATIONEN .............................................................................................. 12

3.2.2 - ANALYSE AF APPELFORMER OG RETORISKE VIRKEMIDLER ....................................................... 12

3.3 – SAMMENLIGNING͏: UDVIKLIN͏GE͏N͏ I US͏AʼS͏ RO͏LLE͏ I ˮWAR ON TERRORˮ .......................................... 15

4. DISKUSSION - KAN USA FRAVÆLGE AT FØRE EN REALISTISK UDENRIGSPOLITIK ................... 15

4.1 – DET AMERIKANSKE MAGTPARADOKS ........................................................................................... 16

4.2 –BARACK OBAMA – IDEALIST͏ EL͏LE͏R͏ RE͏AL͏IST? ............................................................................... 17

4.3 – REALISTISK UDENRIGSPOLITIK ELLER EJ? .................................................................................... 18

5. KONKLUSION .......................................................................................................... 20

6. LITTERATURLISTE ................................................................................................... 21

6.1 – BØGER .......................................................................................................................................... 21

6.2 - INTERN͏ET͏S͏IDE͏R͏ ........................................................................................................................... 21

6.3 – YOUTUBE KLIP .............................................................................................................................. 22

7.1 – BILAG 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 23

7.2 – BILAG 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 34

7.3 – BILAG 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 38

Side 4

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

1

1. INDLEDNING

Terrorisme kom for alvor på den politiske dagsorden efter terrorangrebet d. 11.09.2001. Det er stadig et af de allerstørste udenrigspolitiske ͏udfordringer, som verdenssamfundet står overfor at skulle løse i fællesskab. Det blev for alvor klart i sommeren 2014, da Islamisk Stat ekspanderede voldsomt ͏i ͏Irak ͏og ͏Syrien, ͏og ͏henrettede ͏to ͏amerikanske ͏journalister. ͏En ͏sådan ͏fremfærd ͏kan verdenssamfundet ikke undgå at skulle forholde sig til, og med supermagten USA i spidsen, er en bred ͏koalition gået i krig i Irak og Syrien. Formålet er, at udrydde Islamisk Stat og gøre verden til et mere sikkert sted. Denne opgave har til hensigt͏ at undersøge, hvordan den politiske strategi i overfor ͏terrorisme ͏har ͏udviklet ͏sig ͏fra ͏2001-2014 ͏i ͏USA. ͏Udgangspunktet ͏for ͏opgaven, ͏er ͏en redegørelse af USAʼs rolle i kampen mod terrorisme. Dereft͏er gives der en teoretisk redegørelse af idealisme og realisme, for at få forståelse for de mekanismer, der kan bruges i anal͏ysen af den politik ͏Obama ͏fører. ͏For ͏at ͏belyse ͏USAʼs ͏rolle ͏i ͏udviklingen ͏i ͏ˮwar ͏on ͏terrorˮ ͏vil ͏der ͏blive analyseret to ͏taler af ͏Barack Obama, fra ͏henholdsvis 2009 og ͏2014. Efterfølgende ͏vil der blive lavet en sammenligning af ͏de to ͏taler med henblik på, at ͏klarlægge udviklingen i den politiske strategi ͏omkring ͏terrorisme. ͏Slutteligt ͏vil ͏der ͏blive ͏diskuteret ͏om ͏det ͏er ͏muligt ͏for ͏USA, ͏at fravælge at føre en realistisk udenrigspolit͏ik͏. Diskussionen vil tage udgangspunkt i USAʼs position som den eneste supermagt i verden og derefter vil det blive vurderet, i hvilket omfang Obama kan betegnes som realist eller idealist.

Side 5

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

2

2. REDEGØRELSE – USAʼS ROLLE I KAMPEN MOD TERRORISME FRA 2001-2014

Terrorangrebet den 11. September 2001, der rystede hele verden, blev for alvor startskuddet for den ͏internationale ͏kamp ͏mod ͏terrorisme. ͏Kampen ͏mod ͏terrorisme ͏blev ͏nu ͏et ͏af ͏de ͏højest

prioriterede ͏emner ͏i ͏den ͏globale ͏sikkerhedspolitik, ͏og ͏allerede ͏et ͏døgn ͏efter ͏9/11 ͏blev ͏NATO

chartrets artikel 5 taget i brug. Artikel 5 fastslår, at et angreb på en NATO medlemsstat anses for

et angreb på alle alliancens medlemmer.^{1} Dermed blev 9/11 anset som et direkte angreb mod

NATO-landene og ikke alene USA. Umiddelbart efter terrorangrebene indledte USAʼs daværende præsident, George W. Bush, den såkaldte krig mod terror.

2.1 – GEORGE W. BUSH (2001-2009)

Neokonservatismen ͏under ͏Bush ͏kom ͏til ͏at ͏udgøre ͏kernen ͏i ͏amerikansk ͏udenrigs- ͏og sikkerhedspolitik fra hans indsættelse ͏i 2001, ͏frem til hans afgang i januar 2009. Udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitikken var baseret på tanken om, at USA havde både pligt til, ret til og interesse i, at ͏indgå ͏i ͏en ͏global ͏kamp ͏for ͏udbredelsen ͏af ͏demokrati ͏og ͏menneskerettigheder, ͏hvor militærmagt om nødvendigt, måttes anvendes til at opnå målet. Dette kom tydeligt til udtryk, da amerikansk-ledede ͏koalitioner ͏invaderede ͏Afghanistan ͏i ͏2001 ͏og ͏Irak ͏i ͏2003. ͏Invasionen ͏af Afghanistan blev begrundet med nødvendigheden af, at besejre Osama Bin Laden og svække Al-

Queda-netværket samt vælte Taleban-styret i landet. Invasionen af Irak blev begrundet med, at den potentielle sikkerhedsrisiko for Mellemøsten, Europa og resten af det internationale system blev ͏for ͏stor, ͏hvis ͏diktatoren ͏Saddam ͏Hussein ͏formåede ͏at ͏udvikle ͏masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Ydermere ͏bestod ͏begrundelsen ͏i, ͏at ͏Saddam ͏Hussein ͏brød ͏menneskerettighederne ͏og undertrykte befolkningen i Irak. Dertil kan det nævnes, at͏ invasionen af Irak i 2003 skete uden FNʼs ͏sikkerhedsråd ͏havde ͏givet ͏deres ͏endelige ͏tilladelse, ͏og ͏det ͏var ͏dermed ͏et ͏brud ͏på ͏FN-chartret. USA har senere henvist til, at man tjente det internationale samfunds interesser bedst

ved at gå i krig, og vælte Saddam Husseins regime i Irak.^{2} Allerede den 1. maj 2003 erklærede

præsident Bush missionen i Irak for fuldført, men kampene i Irak forsatte og USA måtte på trods

1. Invo͏catio͏n of A͏rticle 5 co͏nfirmed. Udgivet af NAT͏O͏. Besø͏gt d. 30͏.11.20͏14͏

2. Wivel, Anders: Danmark, Europa, Verden. Side 86-87. 1. udg. Gyldendal, 2012. (Bog)

Side 6

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

3 af, ͏at ͏flere ͏og ͏flere ͏fra ͏den ͏oprindelige ͏koalition ͏faldt ͏fra, ͏blive ͏i ͏Irak. ͏Først ͏i ͏2011 ͏meddelte præsident Obama, at de amerikanske tropper ville blive kaldt hjem ved årets udgang.

Den ͏rolle ͏USA ͏havde ͏i ͏kampen ͏mod ͏terrorisme ͏under ͏Bush-administationen, ͏der ͏førte ͏til invasionerne af Afghanistan og Irak, førte til væsentlige udfordringer for USA. Landet oplevede konsekvenser ͏ift. ͏den ͏hårde ͏magt ͏gennem ͏et ͏militær, ͏der ͏blev ͏drænet ͏for ͏menneskelige ressourcer ͏samt ͏en ͏økonomi, ͏hvor ͏militæret ͏udgjorde ͏en ͏uhensigtsmæssig ͏stor ͏ugift. ͏Ift. ͏den bløde ͏mag͏t, ͏blev ͏USA ͏voldsomt ͏kritiseret ͏efter ͏historierne ͏om ͏tortur ͏af ͏irakiske ͏fanger ͏i ͏Abu Chraib-fængslet samt USAʼs behandling af fanger i militærfængslet i Guantanamo Bay. Ydermere

blev den øgede overvågning i USA jf. ˮThe patriot actˮ^{3} kritiseret. Disse historier medvirkede til,

at verdenssamfundet fik et indtryk af, at supermagten USA ikke formåede at leve op til sit eget politiske ͏projekt, ͏der ͏netop ͏havde ͏til ͏formål ͏at ͏fremme ͏demokrati ͏og ͏menneskerettigheder ͏i

verden. USA stod i den paradoksale situation, at deres egen politiske reaktion på 9/11 blev en

større trussel for USA end selve terrorangrebet. Således var både den hårde og bløde magt i fare for ͏at ͏blive ͏undermineret ͏af ͏unipolens ͏egen ͏politik ͏og ͏USAʼs ͏relationer ͏til ͏sine ͏allierede ͏blev

forværret.^{4}

2.2 – BARACK OBAMA (2009-)

Da ͏Barack ͏Obama ͏i ͏2009 ͏indsættes ͏som ͏USAʼ͏s ͏44. ͏præsident, ͏udrenses ͏resterne ͏af neokonservatismen. Obama ͏går væsentligt mere pragmatisk til͏ ͏værks end sin ͏forgænger. Hans begejstring ͏for ͏internationale ͏organisationer ͏samt ͏diplomati, ͏har ͏forbedret ͏forholdet ͏til ͏USAʼs allierede. Obama er dog ͏langt fra modstander af militær magt og terrorbekæmpelse er, omend retorikken omkring det er væsentligt ændret, forsat højt prioriteret hos Obama.

Helt naturligt, var fokusset for udenrigspolitikken væsentligt anderledes for Obama end den var for Bush otte år tidligere. Ob͏ama ͏indledte ͏sin ͏embedsperiode ͏med ͏at ͏skulle ͏forholde ͏sig ͏til ͏en global økonomisk krise, der kaldte på en realistisk pragmatisk løsning. Den systemforandring i Mellemøsten, ͏som ͏optog ͏Bush ͏gennem ͏den ͏første ͏halvdel ͏00ʼerne, ͏var ͏der ͏ikke ͏l͏ængere opbakning til. Derudover gav erfaringerne fra Afghanistan og Irak en naturlig tilbageholdenhed

3. ˮBru͏g͏e͏n͏ af sikkerhe͏dsteknol͏o͏g͏iˮ͏ a͏f ͏jo͏u͏rn͏a͏list Thom͏a͏s Møller Larsen͏, Dagblad͏et Informa͏tion. Septem͏ber 201͏4

4. Danmark, Europa, Verden. Side 87-88.

Side 7

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

4 overfor nye militære operationer hos Obama, både fordi militæret var nedslidt, men også fordi

                                             5
USAʼs legitimitet havde brug for at blive genoprettet.

Obamas ͏tilgang til terrorisme blev sat på prøve i 2014, da IS for alvor vandt frem i ͏Irak og Syrien.

Halshugningen ͏af ͏to ͏amerikanske ͏journalister ͏fik ͏hele ͏verdenssamfundet ͏til ͏at ͏vente ͏på supermagtens reaktion. Da præsident Obama fremlagde sin plan for at bekæmpe IS i september

2014, ͏blev ͏det ͏klart, ͏at ͏ha͏n ͏ville ͏ˮødelæggeˮ ͏IS ͏fra ͏luften, ͏men ͏ik͏ke ͏sætte ͏landtropper ͏ind.

Desuden ͏gjorde ͏Obama ͏meget ͏ud ͏af, ͏at ͏inddrage ͏de ͏allierede, ͏som ͏også ͏inkluderede ͏talrige mellemøstlige lande.

2.3 – TEORIER INDEN FOR INTERNATIOAL POLITIK

Når ͏man ͏beskæftiger ͏sig ͏med ͏international ͏politik, ͏arbejder ͏man ͏ofte ͏ud ͏fra ͏to ͏hovedteorier: idealismen og realismen. Disse to teorier forsøger hver især at forklare de begivenheder der sker i ͏verden ͏og ͏til ͏dels ͏forudse ͏hvordan ͏fremtiden ͏og ͏fremtidens ͏verdensorden ͏vil ͏udforme

sig. Følgende redegørelse er baseret på bogen ˮDanmark, Europa, Verden.ˮ^{6}

2.4 – IDEALISME

Idealismen ͏er ͏kendetegnet ͏ved, ͏at ͏dele ͏liberale ͏grundholdninger ͏omkring ͏mennesket ͏som værende et fornuftsvæsen, troen på fremskidt samt vigtigheden af demokratiet. Idealisterne har en ͏forestilling ͏om, ͏at ͏verdens ͏tilstand ͏gennemgår ͏en ͏udvikling, ͏der ͏over ͏tid ͏fremmer ͏fred ͏i verden. ͏Der ͏er ͏altså ͏tale ͏om ͏en ͏lineær ͏historieopfattelse, ͏hvor ͏man ͏lærer ͏af ͏tidligere ͏fejl.

Udviklingen sker i takt med, at graden af fornuft, demokrati og interdependens stiger i verden.

Den idealistiske tanke ses tydeligt hos Francis Fukuyama, der blev kendt for sit hovedværk ˮThe End of History and the Last Manˮ fra 1992. I bogen argumenterer Fukuyama for, at historien er slut, fordi den kolde krigs afslutning samtidig betød, at det liberale demokrati sejrede. Det betød, ifølge Fukuyama, at ideologiernes kamp var slut, og det liberale demokrati ville udbrede sig til

5. Danmark, Europa, Verden. Side 88-89.

6. Danmark, Europa, Verden. Side 27-35.

Side 8

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

5 hele verden og dermed skabe fred.

Idealisternes liberale menneskesyn ͏betyder, at der ikke er interessemodsætninger i international politik. Dette kan forklares ved, at idealisternes perspektiv på international politik bunder i en tro på, at mennesket er fornuftigt og altid vil stræbe efter egen lykke. Derudover er idealismen baseret på tanker om frihandel og interdependens. I takt med, at der ska͏bes større afhængighed mellem landene, øges ͏chan͏cerne for fred, da man ikke går i krig med et land, man er afhængigt ͏af.

Ydermere ͏går ͏idealister ͏ind ͏for ͏samarbejde ͏og ͏forudsætningen ͏for, ͏at ͏idealister ͏tør ͏indlede ͏et samarbejde er, ͏at alle mennesker ͏ses som fornuftige og derfor ͏har samme interesse ͏i at skabe fred, ͏sikkerhed ͏og ͏lykke. ͏Idealister ͏mener, ͏at ͏fremskidt ͏er ͏muligt, ͏såfremt ͏int͏ernationalt͏ samarbejde organiseres på en måde, så det fører til gevinst for alle lande. ͏Dette ses eksempelvis i form ͏af ͏organisationer ͏som ͏FN, ͏der ͏bygger ͏på ͏idealisme. ͏Ifølge ͏idealismen ͏opstår ͏konflikter ͏i international politik, når staterne har en lav grad af interdependens og hvis der ͏opstår forskellige præferencer blandt staterne, så de ikke længere deler de samme interesser.

2.5 – REALISME

Realismen opstod som modsvar til idealismen. Realisterne har fået inspiration fra traditionelle tænkere ͏som ͏Thukydid, ͏Machiavelli ͏og ͏Hobbes, ͏der ͏alle ͏definere ͏sig ͏selv ͏som ͏ˮrealisterˮ ͏i modsætning i ˮidealister.ˮ Det vil sige, at verden eksisterer uafhængigt af menneskets tanker og idéer ͏om ͏den. ͏Realisterne ͏forsøger, ͏at ͏forklare ͏hvordan ͏international ͏politik ͏er, ͏ikke ͏hvordan international politik kunne være. Hovedkernen i realismen er, at alle lande handler ud fra deres egne interesser og der ikke findes nogen, der er interesseret i det fælles bedste. Ydermere tror realister kun på midlertidig fred, da de er af ͏den overbevisning, at historien forandres, men at mønstrene går igen. Dvs. de har en cirkulær historieopfattelse.

Den cent͏ra͏le aktør i den realistiske analyse er staten. Staten er den mest magtfulde aktør i det internationale anarki ͏set i forhold til internationale organisationer eller multinationale ͏selsk͏aber, fordi disse aktører er nødsaget til at handle inden for de rammer, som staten opstiller.

Ifølge realisterne ͏opstår konflikter i international ͏politik, ͏fordi staterne forsøger ͏at ͏maksimere

Side 9

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

6

deres ͏egen ͏sikkerhed. ͏Det ͏medfører ͏et ͏sikkerhedsdilemma ͏og/eller ͏en ͏magtubalance, ͏der ͏kan

lede ͏til ͏konflikt. ͏Fred ͏og ͏samarbejde ͏opnås ͏gennem ͏stabilisering ͏af ͏magtbalance ͏og ͏gennem internationale aftaler, med fokus på fordelingen af gevinster. Slutteligt kan det nævnes, at der er to ͏teser ͏indenfor ͏realismen. ͏Den ͏defensive ͏realisme ͏bygger ͏på, ͏at ͏staterne ͏opnår ͏sikkerhed gennem ͏magtbalance, ͏hvilket ͏betyder ͏at ͏en ͏ekspansion ͏kun ͏kommer ͏som ͏modsvar ͏på ͏andres.

Den ͏offensive ͏realismen ͏bygger ͏på, ͏at ͏staterne ͏opnår ͏større ͏sikkerhed ͏ved, ͏at ͏skabe ͏en magtubalance til egen fordel. Det vil sige, at staterne ikke opruster som et modsvar, som det er tilfældet hos den defensive realisme, men udelukkende for at forøge deres magt.

3. RETORISK ANALYSE – ˮA NEW BEGINNINGˮ OG ˮSPEECH ON ISISˮ

I denne analyse vil Barack Obamas tale ˮA New Beginningˮ samt ˮSpeech on ISISˮ gennemgå en retorisk analyse, der til slut munder ud i en retorisk sammenligning af disse, med henblik på at klarlægge USAʼs rolle i udviklingen i ˮwar on terror.ˮ

3.1 - BARACK OBAMA: ˮA NEW BEGINNINGˮ D. 4 JUNI 2009

For at kunne opnå den bedste forståelse for Obamas tale i Kairo, er det nødvendigt at have en baggrundsviden om den politiske situation i USA på daværende tidspunkt. Obama er blevet valgt til præsident et halvt år før denne tale afholdes, hvilket betyder at Obama på dette tidspunkt, er ved at definere sin rolle som USAʼs præsident og han ønsker, at differentiere sig markant fra den upopulære udenrigspolitiske rolle, som hans forgænger, George W. Bush, havde lagt for dagen. Jf.

redegørelsen ͏er ͏forholdet ͏mellem ͏USA ͏og ͏Mellemøsten ͏hårdt ͏presset ͏under ͏Bushs embedsperiode og USAʼs militære ageren i Mellemøsten, ͏var mål for massiv kritik. Allerede under valgkampen ͏var ͏forholdet ͏til ͏den ͏muslimske ͏verden ͏på ͏Obamas ͏dagsorden ͏og ͏i ͏hans indsættelsestale i 2009, talte han ligeledes direkte til den muslimske verden. Obama ha͏vde altså en ͏helt͏ ͏klar ͏interesse ͏i, ͏at ͏reparere ͏forholdet ͏mellem ͏USA ͏og ͏Mellemøsten ͏og ͏derigennem redefinere USAʼs udenrigspolitiske linje. Supermagten havde brug for et nyt image.

Side 10

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

7

3.1.1 - Kommunikationssituationen

Som beskrevet ovenfor er Obama opsat på, at trække en streg i sandet og starte på en frisk.͏ Han indleder ͏med ͏at ͏ta͏le ͏direkte ͏til ͏publikum ͏og ͏til ͏den ͏primære ͏målgruppe, ͏der ͏er ͏den ͏brede mellemøstlige befolkning samt deres ledere: ”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.”^{7} Obama ͏får ͏her ͏skabt ͏et ͏symmetrisk ͏kommunikationsforhold ͏med ͏sine ͏tilhørere, ͏da

han taler direkte til dem, og videregiver en ˮpersonligˮ hilsen fra det muslimske lokalsamfund i

                                                                   8
USA. Den ͏arabiske ͏hilsen ͏ˮassalaamu ͏alaykumˮ ͏betyder ͏ˮfred ͏være ͏med ͏jerˮ og det ͏faktum, ͏at

Obama ͏vælger ͏at ͏tale ͏arabisk, ͏fremfor ͏at ͏oversætte ͏hilsenen ͏til ͏engelsk, ͏understreger ͏hans velvilje til forandring og skaber god kontakt med tilhørerne, der får følelsen af, at de er på͏ lige fod. Ydermere er præsidenten helt klar i mælet, når hans formål med talen bliver bragt på banen:

”I ͏have ͏come ͏here ͏to ͏seek ͏a ͏new ͏b ͏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.”^{9}

Budskabet er lysende klart, Obama ønsker at gå i fremtid i møde, hvor vestlige og mellemøstlige værdier ͏ikke ͏længere ͏skal ͏opfattes ͏som ͏uforenelige, ͏men ͏hvor ͏USA ͏og ͏Mell͏emøsten ͏forenes gennem et fodfæste af fælles værdier og ͏interesser. På ͏trods ͏af, ͏at ͏den ͏primære ͏målgruppe ͏er befolkningen ͏i ͏Mellemøsten, ͏taler ͏han ͏som ͏præsident ͏på ͏USAʼs ͏vegne, ͏det ͏betyder ͏at amerikanerne gøres til den sekundære målgruppe. Amerikanerne opfordres således ͏også ͏til ͏at begrave stridsøksen. Når Obama erklærer, at den fælles fremtid skal baseres på gensidig respekt og interesser, fornemmes samtidig en klar erkendelse af, at Bush op gennem 00ʼerne har handlet ud fra egne interesser og ikke har ageret respektfuldt overfor den muslimske verden: ”This cycle

                              10
of ͏suspicion ͏and ͏discord ͏must ͏end.”

Implicit ͏sender ͏Obama ͏altså ͏et ͏klart ͏budskab ͏om, ͏at ͏han tager afstand fra den måde, hvorpå USA har ageret overfor Mellemøsten under Bush og at der er forandring på vej.

7. Obama, Barack: "A new beginning" 04.06.2009. S. 23 (Bilag 1)

8. Om at hilse på hinanden . Udgivet af Aminah Tønnsen. Besøgt d. 01.12.2014

9. Ibid. S͏. 2͏3

10. Ibid. S. 23

Side 11

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

8

3.1.2 - Analyse af appelformer

Obama ͏gør ͏i ͏sin ͏tale ͏stor ͏brug ͏af ͏etos. ͏Han ͏forsøger ͏at ͏overbevise ͏sin ͏tilhørere ͏om, ͏at ͏han respekterer og ikke mindst, har en stor forståelse for Islam, som en led i den forsoningsp͏roces han søger:

”Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes g͏enerations 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.”^{11}

Obama tillægger her sine personlige erfaringer og oplevelser stor betydning. Han henviser til, at han ͏selv, ͏som ͏kristen, ͏har ͏formået ͏at ͏leve ͏i ͏harmoni ͏med ͏muslimer ͏samtidig ͏med ͏at ͏han understreger, ͏at ͏Islam ͏for ͏mange ͏muslimer ͏er ͏lig ͏fred ͏og ͏værdighed. ͏Dette ͏medvirker ͏til, ͏a͏t͏ Obama kommer sit publikum i møde og de får l͏ettere tillid til ham. Det er også retorisk klogt, at Obama taler om konkrete situationer, som muslimerne kender fra deres hverdag. Det betyder, at de let k͏an identificere sig med Obama. Ha͏ns personlige og subjektive stil gør, at der sagtens kan argumenteres ͏for, ͏at ͏Obama ͏også ͏benytter ͏patos, ͏fordi ͏det ͏personlige ͏i ͏højere ͏grad ͏taler ͏til publikums følelser end det upersonlige. Han benytter også lejligheden til at rose Islam: ˮIslamic culture ͏has ͏given ͏us ͏majestic ͏arches ͏and ͏soaring ͏spires; ͏timeless ͏poetry ͏and ͏cherished ͏music;

                                                   12
elegant ͏calligraphy ͏and ͏places ͏of ͏peaceful ͏contemplation.” Denne ͏anerk͏endelse ͏vil ͏naturligvis

gøre, ͏at ͏modtagerne ͏føler ͏sig ͏stolte, ͏respekteret ͏og ͏godt ͏tilpas, ͏hvilket ͏også ͏medfører, ͏at ͏den muslimske verden er mere modtagelige overfor Obamas budskab.

Obama ͏formår ͏at ͏styrke ͏sit ͏etos ͏yderligere, ͏når ͏han ͏i ͏sin ͏tale ͏henviser ͏til ͏USAʼs ͏tidligere præsidenter:

”In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United ͏Stat͏es has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, r͏eligion or tranquility of Muslims… 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

                   13
in his personal library.”

11. Ibid. S. 24

12. Ibid. S. 24

13. Ibid. S. 24

Side 12

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

9

Obama ͏bruger ͏her ͏John ͏Adams ͏og ͏Thomas ͏Jeffersons ͏troværdighed ͏til ͏at ͏understøtt͏e ͏sin ͏egen etos. ͏Han ͏formår ͏at ͏overbevise ͏sit ͏publikum ͏om, ͏at ͏hans ͏synspunkter ͏er ͏delt ͏af ͏to ͏andre præsidenter, ͏der ͏har ͏haft ͏stor ͏betydning ͏i ͏USAʼs ͏historie, ͏hvilket ͏styrker ͏hans ͏troværdighed betragteligt, fordi John Adams og Thomas ͏Jefferson anses som troværdige kilder. Obama forsøger altså at fremme sit budskab om at USA, også historisk, ikke har eller har haft et fjendtligt forhold til Islam - tværtimod.

Obama bruger flere appelformer til at supplere og underbygge hinanden, hvilket får talen til at virke mere overbevisende, fordi han appellerer til modtagerne på flere måder på én gang. Dette er tilfældet i hans ital͏esættelse af situationen i Afghanistan: ˮIn Ankara, I ͏made clear th͏at A͏merica is ͏not ͏– ͏and ͏never ͏will ͏be ͏– ͏at ͏war ͏with ͏Islam. ͏We ͏will, ͏however, ͏relentlessly ͏confront ͏violent

                                             14
extremists ͏who ͏pose ͏a ͏grave ͏threat ͏to ͏our ͏security”

Ved ͏brug ͏af ͏ˮIˮ ͏appellerer ͏til ͏modtagerne gennem sin egen troværdighed, som verdens mest ma͏gtfulde mand. På den måde er grundlaget for at overbevise modtagerne vha. en saglig og rationel argumentation givet:

”I ͏am ͏aware ͏that ͏some ͏question ͏or ͏justify ͏the ͏events ͏of ͏9/11. ͏But ͏let ͏us ͏be ͏clear: ͏al ͏Qaeda ͏killed

nearly 3,00͏0 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children… 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… These are not opinions to be ͏debated; these are facts

to be dealt with.”^{15}

Dette ͏er ͏er ͏tydeligt ͏eksempel ͏på ͏logos. ͏Obama ͏forsøger ͏at ͏tale ͏til ͏modtagernes ͏fornuft ͏og overbevise ͏dem ͏om, ͏at ͏b͏egivenhederne ͏d. ͏11 ͏sep. ͏2001 ͏ikke ͏er ͏til ͏debat ͏og ͏aldrig ͏ville ͏kunne retfærdiggøres. ͏Det ͏er ͏fakta, ͏at ͏næsten ͏3000 ͏mennesker ͏mistede ͏livet ͏og ͏det ͏understøtter Obamas pointe om, at det handler om fakta fremfor holdninger. Han opnår ydermere en stærk logos-appel ved brugen af ͏et objektivt og neutralt sprog, hvor der er ikke gøres brug af hans egen person, men i stedet bruges den mere generelle vending: ˮLet us be clear.” Det underbygger, at det ͏ikke ͏handler ͏om ͏Obamas ͏personlige ͏holdning, ͏men ͏i ͏stedet ͏er ͏udryk ͏for ͏en ͏rationel beskrivelse af sandheden.

14. Ibid. S. 25

15. Ibid. S. 26

Side 13

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

10

3.1.3 - Retoriske virkemidler

Det ͏mest ͏karakteristiske ͏retoriske ͏virkemiddel, ͏er ͏Obamas ͏brug ͏af ͏antiteser. ͏Antitesen ͏er ͏en bevidst retorisk måde, at sætte klare modsætninger op overfor hinanden. Det er et hyppigt brugt virkemiddel, fordi ͏antiteser ͏effektivt ͏kan ͏bruges ͏til ͏at ͏iscenesætte ͏sig ͏selv ͏på en ͏positiv ͏måde.

Obama har, som nyvalgt præsident, en interesse i, at adskille sig fra sin upopulære forgænger og bruger derfor antitesen til, at få ham og Bush til at fremstå som diametrale modsætninger:

”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… ͏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

        16
it will be."

Det er tydeligt, at Obama mener, at krigen i ͏Irak skulle være håndteret anderledes, ͏når han kalder den en ˮwar of choice.ˮ Han viser, at han går ind for diplomatiske løsninger og han understeger vigtigheden ͏af, ͏at ͏der ͏er ͏international ͏konsensus ͏om ͏hvordan ͏problemerne ͏skal ͏løses, ͏før ͏der bliver grebet til handling. Her kunne Obama også refererer til det faktum, at Bush gik i krig uden at have FNʼs endelige tilladelse.

Det ͏valgte ͏Thomas ͏Jefferson ͏citat, ͏der ͏oser ͏af ͏idealisme, ͏understeger ͏at ͏Obama ͏ønsker ͏at ͏se situationen ud fra en lineær historieopfattelse, hvor man lærer af de tidligere fejl. Han benytter sig igen af antitesen, når ͏han ͏taler ͏om ͏neokonservatismen ͏under ͏Bush: ͏”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.”^{17} Obama tager klart afstand til Bushs politik og fremstiller sig selv

som ͏en ͏modsætning, ͏der ͏har ͏helt ͏andre ͏visioner ͏end ͏udbredelsen ͏af ͏vestlige ͏værdier ͏i Mellemøsten. ͏ ͏Obama ͏bruger ͏igen ͏antitesen, ͏men ͏her ͏benytter ͏han ͏antitesen ͏til ͏at ͏opstille ͏en modsætning ͏mellem ͏ham ͏selv ͏og ͏dem, ͏der ͏ikke ͏tror ͏på ͏den ͏nye ͏begyndelse, ͏som ͏hele ͏talen omhandler:

16. Ibid. S. 26

17. Ibid. S. 29

Side 14

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

11

”I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new

b. 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... 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.”^{18}

Man kunne fristes til at sige, at Obama i overstående citat opstiller en antitese mellem idealister og realister, hvor han selv hopper med på den idealistiske vogn. Han ͏laver med vendingen ˮ…and civilizations are doomed to clashˮ en klar reference til realisten͏ Samuel P. Huntingtons bog ˮ͏The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Orderˮ fra 1996. Huntingtons tese går ud på, at kilden til konflikter i verden er civilisationer, der støder sammen, i dette tilfælde civilisationerne

islam og vesten. Huntingtons tese ͏blev for alvor relevant efter 9/11͏ og den efterfølgende invasion

af Irak, men Obama tager altså klart afstand til teorien og mener, at det er på tide at se fremad.

3.2 - BARACK OBAMA: ˮSPEECH ON ISISˮ D. 10 SEPEMBER 2014

For at opnå den optimale forståelse for talen, er det nødvendigt at opridse hovedpunkterne i den politiske situation, ͏Obama ͏befandt ͏sig ͏i ͏på ͏daværende ͏tidspunkt. ͏Terrororganisationen ͏IS ͏eller ISIL, som Obama kalder dem, ekspanderede voldsomt i Irak og Syrien i sommeren 2014. Der har hersket ͏tvivl ͏om, ͏hvilken ͏strategi ͏Obama ͏ville ͏benytte ͏i ͏forhold ͏til ͏bekæmpelsen ͏af ͏IS.

Spørgsmålet gik imidlertid ikke på om USA skulle indblandes, men snarere om der skulle sættes en stopper for ISʼs fremrykning eller om der skulle indledes en decideret krig, hvor målet var at nedkæmpe IS. Dette spørgsmål kom der klarhed omkring, efter de to amerikanske soldater James Foley og St͏even Sotloff blev myrdet. Den 3 september 2014, en uge før talen, udtalte Obama at hans målsætning var klar: IS skal ødelægges. Det er desuden værd at nævne, at hele 73% af den

amerikanske befolkning mener, at IS udgør en meget stor eller temmelig stor trussel for USA.^{19}

Dette øger naturligvis presset på Obama for, at fremlægge en konkret strategi i kampen mod IS.

18. Ibid. S. 32

19. Se bilag 3 s. 38

Side 15

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

12

3.2.1 - Kommunikationssituationen

Obama indleder ͏sin tale med at gøre hans budskab til den amerikanske befolkning helt klart: ˮMy fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our

                                                                        20
friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.” Som USAʼs

præsident har Obama har en klar interesse i, at fremstå som en handlekraftig leder, for at vække tillid til, at hans politiske projekt om at udslette IS er ͏nødvendigt͏, og for at sikre USAʼs og verdens interesser. Det formår han på glimrende vis i overstående citat, da han stålfast indleder med at sige, at IS vil blive nedbrudt og til sidste udryddet af USA og deres allierede. Det er altafgørende for Obama, at de første to linjer i hans tale kommunikere dette budskab, da netop dette vil blive set på TV og læst af flest muligt. Det ͏er ydermere et helt bevidst retorisk valg, at de to første linjer er så ͏uk͏onk͏ret͏e og der ikke bliver nævnt hvordan IS skal bekæmpes, da det vigtigste budskab for Obama ͏er, ͏at ͏få ͏kommunikereret ͏formålet ͏med ͏strategien, ͏så ͏enkelt ͏som ͏det ͏overhovedet ͏kan lade sig gøre.

3.2.2 - Analyse af appelformer og retoriske virkemidler

I ͏Obamas ͏IS-tale ͏er ͏det ͏mest ͏hensigtsmæssigt, ͏at ͏analysere ͏appelformer ͏og ͏de ͏retoriske virkemidler i samspil med hinanden, fordi de udvalgte citater illustrerer det tætte samarbejde appelformerne ͏og ͏de ͏retoriske ͏virkemidlerne ͏har, ͏i ͏måden ͏hvorpå ͏læseren ͏ønskes ͏påvirket. ͏I denne tale, er der særligt lagt vægt på Obamas brug af patos samt hans brug af anaforer, da disse virkemidler bedst belyser udviklingen i USAʼs rolle i ˮwar on terror.ˮ

Obama starter sin ͏tale med, at se tilbage og fremhæve, hvad USA indtil nu ͏har formået at gøre ved terrortruslen. Dette gør han for at skabe tillid til, at USA kan håndtere IS-truslen og slå fast, at USAʼs ͏militære ͏missioner ͏virkelig ͏gør ͏en ͏forskel. ͏Han ͏sp͏il͏ler ͏i ͏talen ͏på ͏sin ͏præsident-status, hvilket ͏er ͏et ͏tydeligt ͏etos-virkemiddel, ͏når ͏han ͏påpeger, ͏at ͏han ͏er ͏øverstkommanderende ͏og dermed er magtfuld:

20. Obama, Barack: ˮSpeech on ISISˮ d. 10 sep. 2014. S. 34 (Bilag 2)

Side 16

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

13

ˮAs ͏commander-in-chief, ͏my ͏highest ͏priority ͏is ͏the ͏security ͏of ͏the ͏American ͏people. ͏Over ͏the ͏last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who th͏reaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden… We've targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen… We've done so while bringing

more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq…”^{21}

Samtidig benytter Obama et retorisk virkemiddel, når han forsøger, at etablere et fæl͏lesskab͏ med den ͏amerikanske ͏befolkning ͏gennem ͏brugen ͏af ͏ˮwe.ˮ ͏Gentagelsen ͏af ͏ˮweˮ ͏bevirker, ͏at ͏Obama giver ͏publikum ͏del ͏i ͏den ͏stolthed, ͏som ͏han ͏udtrykker ͏over ͏USAʼs ͏udenrigspolitiske ͏formåen.

Obama ͏benytter ͏også ͏lejligheden ͏til, ͏at ͏beskrive ͏IS: ͏ˮThey ͏kill ͏children. ͏They ͏enslave, ͏rape, ͏and force ͏women ͏into ͏marriage. ͏They ͏threatened ͏a ͏religious ͏minority ͏with ͏genocide. ͏In ͏acts ͏of͏

                                                                           22
barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley ͏and Steven Sotloff͏.” Obama

benytter ͏her ͏patos, ͏for ͏at ͏vække ͏vrede ͏og ͏afsky ͏hos ͏den ͏amerikanske ͏befolkning ͏gennem ͏de værdiladede ͏ordvalg ͏og ͏henvisningen ͏til ͏henrettelserne ͏af ͏de ͏to ͏amerikanere. ͏Gentagelsen ͏af

ˮtheyˮ medvirker til, ͏at Obama ͏får skabt ͏en stor ͏afstand til ͏IS og ͏det slår ͏budskabet yderligere fast, når det bliver et spørgsmål om ˮdem og osˮ.

Ydermere planter Obama billeder på publikums nethinde: ˮNow, it will take time to eradicate a

               23
cancer ͏like ͏ISIL.” Når ͏O͏bama͏ ͏giver ͏et ͏levende ͏eksempel ͏ved ͏at ͏sammenligne ͏IS ͏med ͏kræft,

appellerer han igen ͏t͏il publikums følelser, da alle mennesker, i et vist omfang, har haft kræft inde på ͏livet. ͏Obama ͏betegner ͏altså ͏IS ͏som ͏en ͏sygdom, ͏der ͏skal ͏udryddes ͏og ͏alle ͏er ͏enige ͏i, ͏at sygdomme ͏udgør ͏en ͏trussel ͏og ͏skal ͏nedkæmpes. ͏Denne ͏metode ͏er ͏effektiv, ͏når ͏målet ͏er ͏at overbevise amerikanerne om, at hans vision om at ødelægge IS er nødvendig, fordi følelser ofte har en stærkere indflydelse på os end vores fornuft.

Obama bruger ͏ana͏forer, hvor begyndelsen af en sætning gentages i ͏det følgende sætninger, for at få ͏slået ͏budskab͏et ͏fast ͏med ͏syvtommersøm. ͏Det ͏er ͏naturligvis ͏væsentligt ͏for ͏Obama, ͏at ͏hans strategi mod IS fremstår helt klart, men samtidig skal den fremstå målrettet og gennemtænkt:

21. Ibid. S. 34

22. Ibid. S. 34

23. Ibid. S. 36

Side 17

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

14

”First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists… Second, we will increase our ͏support ͏to forces fighting these ͏terrorists ͏on ͏the ground… Third, ͏we ͏will continue to draw ͏on ͏our ͏substantial ͏counterterrorism ͏capabilities ͏to ͏prevent ͏ISIL ͏attacks… ͏Fourth, ͏we ͏will continue providing humanitarian assistance ͏to innocent ͏civilians who have been displaced ͏by this terrorist organization… This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America

                                       24
will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.”

Obama ͏får ͏gennem ͏retorikken ͏styrket ͏sit ͏budskab, ͏fordi ͏han ͏bruger ͏anaforen ͏ˮwe ͏willˮ ͏i fremlæggelsen af strategien. Han får derudover skabt et fælleskab med bruges af ˮwe willˮ og det er altafgørende for Obama, at det står klart, at bekæmpelsen af IS er et fællesprojekt for USA og deres allierende. Samtidig gør brugen af ˮwe willˮ ͏at Obama fremstår handlekraftig, selvsikker og ikke mindst målrettet. Som belæg for, hvorfor USA skal bekæmpe IS, gør Obama ͏brug af ͏endnu en anafor, hvor der bliver lagt vægt på, at USA er et exceptionel land. Den stolthed Obama føler over USA, forsøger at projektere over på sin tilhørere:

”It ͏is ͏America ͏that ͏has ͏the ͏capacity ͏and ͏the ͏will ͏to ͏mobilize ͏the ͏world ͏against ͏terrorists. ͏It ͏is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression… It is America — our scientists, our doctors, our know-how — that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove ͏and ͏destroy ͏Syria's ͏declared ͏chemical weapons… ͏And ͏it ͏is ͏America ͏that is ͏helping Muslim communities ͏around ͏the ͏world ͏not just ͏in ͏the ͏fight ͏against terrorism, ͏but ͏in ͏the ͏fight ͏for

                                          25
opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.”

ˮIt is Americaˮ-anaforen understreger, at USA er den førende nation i verden, hvilket er et vigtigt budskab for Obama, fordi tilhørerne skal mærke en stolthed over at væ͏re amerikanere, samtidig med at de skal mindes om, at USA som den eneste supermagt, er forpligtet til at påtage sig en førende ͏rolle ͏i ͏u͏denrigsp͏olitikken ͏– ͏også ͏når ͏det ͏gælder ͏IS. ͏Exceptionalismen ͏bruges ͏i ͏dette tilfælde ͏både ͏til ͏at ͏retfærdiggøre ͏sikkerheds- ͏og ͏udenrigspolitikken ͏for ͏den ͏amerikanske befolkning, men i ligeså høj grad til at retfærdiggøre den over for resten af verden.

24. Ibid. S. 36-37

25. Ibid. S. 37

Side 18

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

15

3.3 – SAMMENLIGNING: UDVIKLINGEN I USAʼS ROLLE I ˮWAR ON TERRORˮ

Da ͏Obama-administrationen ͏kom ͏til ͏magten ͏i ͏2009, ͏var ͏det ͏med ͏ønsket ͏om, ͏at ͏redefinere amerikansk ͏forsvars- ͏og ͏udenrigspolitik ͏i ͏forhold ͏til ͏den ͏politik,͏ ͏der ͏blev ͏ført ͏under ͏Bush-administrationen. Dette kom tydeligt til udtryk i Obamas tale i Kairo, ͏hvor han udtrykte sit ønske og tro på en ny b͏egyndel͏se i forholdet mellem USA og ͏Mel͏lemøsten. Obama havde et ønske om, at trække ͏soldaterne ͏hjem ͏fra ͏Irak ͏og ͏Afghanistan ͏og ͏i ͏højere ͏grad ͏sætte ͏sin ͏lid ͏til ͏diplomatiske løsninger fremfor militære operationer. Den vedvarende tilstand af krig og konflikt, som havde præget amerikansk udenrigspolitik under Bush, skulle afløses af en tid med foku͏s på økonomisk genopbygning i USA og diplomatisk genopbygning af forholdet til resten af verden. Oba͏ma måtte dog ͏erkende, ͏at ͏han ͏som ͏l͏eder ͏af ͏den ͏eneste ͏supermagt ͏i ͏verden, ͏er ͏nødsaget ͏til ͏at ͏skride ͏til handling, når der ͏opstår ͏uventede ͏situationer, ͏som ͏tilfældet ͏er med IS. Retorikken ͏er ͏markant anderledes i ˮA New Beginningˮ end det er tilfældet i ˮSpeech on ISISˮ hvilket naturligvis hænger sammen med, at tal͏erne hver især optræder i en bestemt kontekst, har helt forskellige formål og er ͏givet ͏med ͏5 ͏års ͏mellemrum. ͏Der ͏kan ͏sagtens ͏argumenteres ͏for, ͏at ͏den ͏retorik ͏Obama fremførte ͏i ͏2009 ͏afspejler ͏en ͏idealistisk ͏vision ͏for ͏udenrigspolitikken ͏og ͏det, ͏som ͏han ͏ønsker skulle definere hans præsident periode: Diplomati og fred. Obama ønskede altså, at USAʼs rolle i

ˮwar on terrorˮ skulle være markant anderledes end under Bush. Retorikken i ˮSpeech on ISISˮ afspejler derimod en realistisk tilgang til udenrigspolitikken, i erkendelsen af at en diplomatisk løsning ͏ikke ͏altid ͏er ͏mulig. ͏2014-retorikken ͏må ͏således ͏være ͏et ͏udtryk ͏for ͏en ͏præsident, ͏der møder virkeligheden som den er, og igen må se bort fra ønsket͏ om diplomati og fred, for at spille en aktiv militærrolle i kampen mod terror.

4. DISKUSSION - KAN USA FRAVÆLGE AT FØRE EN REALISTISK UDENRIGSPOLITIK

For ͏at ͏kunne ͏diskutere ͏hvorvidt ͏det ͏er ͏muligt ͏for ͏USA, ͏at ͏fravælge ͏at ͏føre ͏en ͏realistisk udenrigspolitik, er det hensigtsmæssigt at tage udgangspunkt i USAʼs magtposition i verden, da det ͏er ͏den ͏mest ͏afgørende ͏faktor ͏for ͏udformningen ͏og ͏udførelsen ͏af ͏udenrigspolitikken.

Ydermere er det relevant at kigge nærmere på, om Obama kan karakteriseres som idealist eller realist samt om det overhovedet er muligt, at placere udenrigspolitikken i en teoriboks og i så

Side 19

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

16 fald, ͏om ͏USA ͏kan ͏fravælge ͏den ͏realistiske ͏udenrigspolitik ͏og ͏hvilke ͏mulige ͏konsekvenser ͏det kunne have.

4.1 – DET AMERIKANSKE MAGTPARADOKS

Den væsentlig͏st͏e udfordring USA står overfor, er det magtparadoks der opstår, fordi de ikke kan fører ͏udenrigspolitik ͏alene. ͏De ͏er ͏overlegne ͏på ͏både ͏hård ͏og ͏blød ͏magt ͏i ͏det ͏internationale system, ͏men ͏al͏ligevel ͏har ͏USA ͏kun ͏begrænset ͏mulighed ͏for ͏at ͏handle ͏på ͏egen ͏hånd, ͏når ͏det kommer ͏til ͏eksempelvis ͏terrorisme. ͏Uden ͏internationalt ͏samarbejde, ͏bl͏iver ͏en ͏løsning ͏af

problemet umuligt. ͏Det skaber et ͏paradoks, at en ͏overlegen supermagt langt fra ͏er enerådig.^{26}

Det betyder ydermere, at USA ikke uden videre kan fravælge at føre en realistisk udenrigspolitik, der er nemlig mange hensyn at tage – både indenrigs- og udenrigspolitisk.

Årsagen til ͏dette ͏magtparadoks ͏er ͏ikke ͏entydig, ͏og ͏det ͏kan ͏diskuteres ͏hvilke ͏faktorer, ͏der har betydning for USAʼs udenrigspolitiske rolle.

USAʼs ͏liberal-demokratiske ͏styreform ͏kan ͏ikke ͏undgå ͏at ͏begrænse ͏mulighederne ͏for udenrigspolitikken, ͏fordi ͏USA ͏har ͏utroligt ͏magtfulde ͏lobbyorganisationer, ͏der ͏har ͏enten økonomiske eller værdipolitiske interesser, som de ønsker politikerne skal varetage. Derudover må ͏befolkningens ͏ønsker ͏og ͏holdninger ͏også ͏respekteres, ͏det ͏er ͏således ͏af ͏stor ͏betydning, ͏at opbakningen ͏til ͏en ͏krig ͏findes ͏hos ͏befolkningen. ͏Det ͏er ͏naturligvis ͏væsentligt, ͏at ͏varetage befolkningens interesser fordi politikerne ønskes genvalgt. Et central͏t aspekt af politik ͏er dermed at få kommunikeret sit budskab ud, helt͏ klart og tydeligt, som Ob͏ama formår at gøre det i sin IS-tale. Retorikken ͏er ͏det ͏vigtigste ͏redskab ͏til ͏at ͏overbevise ͏befolkningen, og dermed opnå deres støtte. Man kunne i den forbindelse argumentere for, at de interesser, der skal tages hensyn til, både ͏hos ͏befolkningen ͏og ͏gennem ͏lobbyorganisationerne, ͏påvirker ͏udenrigspolitikken ͏på ͏den måde, at de ikke altid bare kan agere rationelt på udenrigspolitiske udfordringer.

Når en ideologi ͏få͏r en central rolle i udenrigspolitikken, kan det tænkes, at USA kan finde på at gå i krig uden klare interesser og modsat kan afholde sig fra at gå ind i konflikter, hvor de har klare interesser, fordi det strider imod en ideologi. Dette var eksempelvis tilfældet med krigen i Irak, der blev begrundet med, USAʼs pligt til at befri befolkningen fra Saddam Hussein. Samtidig lægger

26. Danmark, Europa, Verden. Side 66.

Side 20

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

17 unipolens overlegne magtposition i det internationale system altid op til en diskussion af USAʼs legitimitet, fordi deres ageren, har betydning for alle lande i verden. Det betyder, at der altid er en forventning ͏om, ͏at ͏USA ͏er ͏frontløber ͏for ͏opretholdelsen ͏af ͏fred ͏og ͏orden ͏i ͏verden. ͏Det ͏er eksempelvis ͏slet ͏ikke ͏en ͏mulighed ͏for ͏USA, ͏at ͏se ͏passivt ͏til ͏mens ͏IS ͏ekspanderer ͏voldsomt ͏i Mellemøsten, da det ville medføre en voldsom kritik. USA møder dog ligeledes kritik for, at ville

pådutte andre lande deres værdier og/eller interesser, når de går forrest i krige og konflikter.^{27}

Dette ͏er ͏blot ͏nogle ͏eksempler ͏på, ͏at ͏der ͏er ͏utrolig ͏mange ͏hensyn ͏at ͏tage, ͏når ͏USA ͏fører udenrigspolitik. Argumenterne giver, i samspillet med hinanden, et nuanceret billede på, at der er mange ͏faktorer ͏at ͏tage ͏hensyn ͏til. ͏Det ͏betyder, ͏at ͏uanset ͏om ͏man ͏fører ͏en ͏idealist͏isk͏ ͏eller realistisk ͏udenrigspolitik, ͏har ͏en ͏unipol ͏har ͏et ͏kæmpe ͏ansvar, ͏og ͏det ͏er ͏ikke ͏udelukkede ͏en fordel, at besidde rollen som supermagt.

4.2 –BARACK OBAMA – IDEALIST ELLER REALIST?

Det ligg͏er altså klart, at der mange faktorer, der spiller ind på USAʼs udenrigspolitik. Det handler ikke ͏blot ͏om, ͏hvilken ͏udenrigspol͏it͏ik͏ ͏der ͏skal ͏føres, ͏men ͏i ͏lige ͏så ͏høj ͏grad ͏om ͏hvilken udenrigspolitik der kan føres. De udfordringer, der opstår på det globale plan, skal håndteres på en ͏måde, ͏der ͏varetager ͏alle ͏de ͏forskelligartede ͏interesser, ͏både ͏i ͏forhold ͏til ͏USAʼs ͏interesser ͏i hjemlandet, ͏men ͏også ͏ude ͏i ͏verden. ͏Det ͏vigtigste ͏for ͏en ͏supermagt ͏er ͏opretholdelsen ͏af ͏deres legitimitet. ͏I ͏den ͏forbindelse ͏er ͏det ͏interessant ͏at ͏se ͏på ͏hvordan ͏de ͏to ͏teorier, ͏idealisme ͏og realisme, kommer til udtryk i udenrigspolitikken. Det er desuden relevant, at se på om Obama kan ͏betegnes ͏som ͏en ͏idealist ͏eller ͏en ͏realist, ͏samt ͏hvorledes ͏dette ͏kommer ͏til ͏udtryk ͏i ͏hans politik.

Det ͏er ͏imidlertid ͏ikke ͏let, ͏at ͏kategorisere ͏Obama ͏som ͏værende ͏enten ͏realist ͏eller ͏idealist. ͏Det vanskeliggøres af flere faktorer, men først og fremmest er betegnelser som realist eller idealist teoretiske konstruktioner, der aldrig vil kunne beskrive virkeligheden i politik ͏helt nøjagtigt. Hvis diskussionen tager udgangspunkt i et ønske om, at kategorisere Obama gennem teorierne, er der en ͏fare ͏for, ͏at ͏opfattelsen ͏af ͏Obama ͏bliver ͏unuanceret ͏og ͏decideret ͏forvrænget, ͏fordi

27. Danmark, Europa, Verden. Side 67.

Side 21

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

18 udgangspunktet ͏var ͏ønsket ͏om, ͏at ͏få ͏ham ͏placeret ͏i ͏en ͏bestemt ͏kasse. ͏Der ͏er ͏imidlertid ͏god mulighed ͏for, ͏at ͏vurdere ͏Obamas ͏udenrigspolitik ͏og ͏hvilke ͏teorier ͏der ͏kommer ͏t͏il ͏udtryk, ͏når konkrete situationer belyses.

Walter ͏Russel ͏Mead, ͏professor ͏ved ͏Bard ͏College, ͏beskriver ͏Obama ͏således: ͏ˮNeither ͏a ͏cold-blooded realist nor a ͏bleeding-heart idealist, Barack Obama has a split͏ personality when it comes

               28
to foreign policy.ˮ

Udsagnet ͏får ͏en ͏genklang ͏af ͏en ͏præsident, ͏der ͏går ͏situationspragmatisk ͏til ͏værks ͏og ͏derfor fremstår som en, der har en splittet rolle, når det kommer til udenrigspolitikken. Men i den førte politik, ͏er ͏det ͏realismen, ͏der ͏kommer ͏stærkest ͏til ͏udtryk. ͏Hans ͏retorik ͏i ͏Kairo ͏strålede ͏af idealisme, men man kan argumentere for, at talen blot var retorik og ikke konkret politik. Hvis man skal være lidt kynisk, kan man sige, at Obama modtog Nobels fredspris 2009 for sin retorik, der ͏omhandlede ͏han ͏fredsskabende ͏visioner ͏i ͏blandt ͏andet ͏Mellemøsten, ͏fremfor ͏konkrete handlinger. ͏Obamas ͏måde ͏at ͏håndtere ͏IS ͏viser ͏også ͏erkendelsen ͏af, ͏at ͏han ͏ikke ͏kan ͏fjerne ondskab i verden eller skabe permanent fred. Det må siges at være et realistisk udgangspunkt.

4.3 – REALISTISK UDENRIGSPOLITIK ELLER EJ?

Den real͏ist͏iske tilgang til udenrigspolitikken er tydelig i amerikansk udenrigspolitik. Et eksempel kunne ͏være ͏i ͏2011, ͏da ͏Obama-administrationen ͏indgik ͏i ͏forhandlinger ͏med ͏Taleban-

bevægelsen.^{29} Da ͏organisationen ͏bliver ͏betragtet ͏som ͏en ͏fundamentalistisk ͏islamisk

terrorgruppe, ͏er ͏det ͏opsigtvækkende, ͏at ͏man ͏inddrager ͏dem, ͏for ͏at ͏finde ͏en ͏løsning ͏på Afghanistan-problematikken. ͏Dette ͏er ͏en ͏tydelig ͏realistisk ͏erkendelse, ͏at ͏man ͏finder ͏det nødvendigt, ͏at ͏forhandle ͏med ͏terrorgrupper, ͏for ͏at ͏opnå ͏en ͏fredeligere ͏tilstand. ͏Man ͏kan argumenterer ͏for, ͏at ͏en ͏mere ͏idealistisk ͏tilgang ͏ikke ͏ville ͏have ͏været ͏passende, ͏fordi ͏det ͏ville opildne ͏til ͏ydereligere ͏konflikt, ͏hvis ͏USA ͏modarbejdede ͏Taleban ͏og ͏supermagten ͏må ͏have vurderet, at det var i deres interesse at dæmpe gemytterne i Afghanistan – også selvom det betød, at ͏man ͏måtte ͏forhandle ͏med ͏en ͏terrororganisation. ͏Det ͏samme ͏synes ͏at ͏være ͏tilfældet, ͏når

28. Mead, Walter Russel: The Carter Syndrome . I: Foreign policy, 04͏.01.20͏10͏, s. 1

29. Brøndum, Peter og Annegrethe Rasmussen: USA's udfordringer . 1. udg. Columbus , 2012. S. 220

Side 22

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

19

Obama samarbejder med den syriske præsident, Basher Al-Assad, i bekæmpelsen af IS. På trods af, ͏at ͏Obama ͏i ͏sommeren ͏2014 ͏var ͏tæt ͏på, ͏at ͏gå ͏i ͏krig ͏med ͏selvsamme ͏præsident ͏efter ͏et

giftangreb på civile uden for Damaskus.^{30}

Hvis ͏supermagten ͏USA ͏skulle ͏fravælge, ͏at ͏føre ͏en ͏realistisk ͏udenrigspolitik ͏og ͏i ͏stedet ͏basere udenrigspolitikken på et idealistisk grundlag, ville det b͏etyde, at der ville være et ønske om, at skabe en international liberal orden. Jf. redegørelsen er det helt grundlæggende i idealismen, at demokratiet er vigtigt, for at sikre menneskets mulighed for deres naturlige stræben efter lykke.

Der ͏opstår ͏et ͏centralt ͏problem ͏gennem ͏tilstedeværelsen ͏af ͏diktatoriske ͏regimer ͏i ͏verden, ͏der krænker ͏de ͏individuelle ͏frihedsrettigheder ͏hos ͏befolkningen, ͏mens ͏de ͏forsøger ͏at ͏øge ͏deres magt. Tesen om, at liberale demokratier er mindre tilbøjelige til at bekrige hinanden, betyder at det ville være mest hensigtsmæssigt, hvis alle lande i verden bestod af liberale demokratier, så en fredelig sameksistens var mulig. Dette er imidlertid ikke tilfældet. Hvis USA forsøger at p͏åtvinge liberale værdier ned over eksempelvis mellemøstlige lande, ville deres legitimitet svækkes, som det tidligere er beskrevet. Desuden har Obama ingen interesse i, at gøre Bush kunsten efter og forsøge ͏med ͏systemforandringer ͏i ͏Mellemøsten, ͏da ͏projektet ͏som ͏bekendt ͏ikk͏e ͏lykkedes, ͏og samtidig svækkede USAʼs legitimitet som supermagt betragteligt.

Idealismens idealer med fokus på fred, kompromiser, forhandling og forandring, er ikke altid en mulig ͏løsningsmodel ͏på ͏de ͏udfordringer ͏USA ͏står ͏overfor, ͏især ͏ikke ͏fordi ͏vi ͏taler ͏om ͏en supermagt. ͏USA ͏er ͏nødsaget ͏t͏il, ͏at ͏handle ͏ud ͏fra ͏egne ͏interesser, ͏for ͏at ͏opnå ͏den ͏realistiske midlertidige ͏fred, ͏men ͏man ͏kunne ͏også ͏argumentere ͏for, ͏at ͏det ͏ville ͏være ͏passende, ͏hvis idealisme og realisme ikke blev sat op som modsætninger, som der kan vælges mellem i førelsen af ͏udenrigspolitik, ͏men ͏i ͏stedet ͏bl͏ev ͏opfattet ͏som ͏forskellige ͏måder, ͏hvorpå ͏supermagten varetager ͏sine ͏interesser. ͏Det ͏er ͏helt ͏usandsynligt, ͏at ͏USA ͏som ͏unipol ͏ikke ͏er ͏nødsaget ͏til ͏at varetage sine egne interesser, i så fald ville det være et spørgsmål om tid før USA mistede titlen som ͏verdens ͏eneste ͏supermagt, ͏når ͏andre ͏regimer ͏fører ͏en ͏offensiv ͏realistisk ͏politik. ͏Det komplette fravalg ͏af ͏den ͏realistisk ͏udenrigspolitik ͏er derfor ikk͏e ͏mulig ͏for ͏en supermagt, men

30. Jensen͏, St͏en͏. B͏er͏lin͏gs͏ke͏ n͏yh͏e͏ds͏b͏ur͏ea͏u͏. 29͏.0͏9.2͏01͏4͏

Side 23

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

20 man ͏kunne ͏argumentere ͏for, ͏at ͏Obama ͏er ͏en ͏præsident, ͏der ͏fører ͏realistisk ͏udenrigspolitik, samtidig med, at han har nogle idealer og ønsker for verdens fremtid, der bunder i idealismen.

5. KONKLUSION

I perioden 2001-2014 er der sket flere epokegørende begivenheder i ͏amerikansk udenrigspolitik.

Terrorangrebet i 2001 og ͏de efterfølgende krige i Afghanistan i 2001 og krigen i Irak i ͏2003 samt krigen mod IS i 2014, er bare få eksempler på, at USA spiller en enorm rolle i den globale kamp mod ͏terrorisme. ͏Da ͏Obama ͏i ͏2009 ͏overtager ͏Bushs ͏rolle, ͏sker ͏der ͏en ͏ændring ͏i ͏den ͏politiske strategi omkring USAʼs rolle i kampen mod terrorisme, da de sidste dele af neokonservatismen bliver ͏udrenset. ͏Obamas ͏retorik ͏i ͏Kairo ͏i ͏2009 ͏afspejlede ͏en ͏idealistisk ͏vision ͏om, ͏at ͏USA ͏og Mellemøsten skal ligge fjendskabet bag sig og starte ͏et nyt kapitel, baseret på fælles interesser og værdier. ISʼ kraftige ekspansion i sommeren 2014 betød dog, at Obama måtte ligge de idealistiske visioner på hylden og med en realistisk tilgang skride til handling og sende en amerikansk-ledet koalition ͏i ͏krig. ͏Obama ͏fører ͏en ͏realistisk ͏udenrigspolitik, ͏men ͏er ͏samtidig ͏inspireret ͏af idealismen og det kan deraf udledes, at Obama kan betegnes som en realist med idealer. USAʼs unikke ͏position ͏som ͏unipol ͏betyder, ͏at ͏den ͏politiske ͏strategi ͏mod ͏terrorisme ͏må ͏tage udgangspunkt ͏i ͏netop ͏det ͏fakt͏um, ͏at ͏USA ͏er ͏en ͏supermagt. ͏Det ͏begrænser ͏muligheden ͏for, ͏at fravælge ͏at ͏føre ͏en ͏realistisk ͏udenrigspolitik, ͏da ͏USA ͏er ͏nødsaget ͏til ͏at ͏varetage ͏sin ͏egne interesser for at opretholde den amerikanske verdensorden. Det kan deraf konkluderes, at den væsentligste ͏faktor ͏for ͏udviklingen ͏i ͏den ͏politiske ͏strategi ͏omkring ͏USAʼs ͏rolle ͏i ͏kampen ͏mod terrorismen er, at de situationer der opstår i verden, ͏må håndteres gennem ͏de ͏muligheder ͏og begrænsninger, som det at være en supermagt uundgåeligt medfører.

Side 24

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

21

6. LITTERATURLISTE

6.1 – BØGER

Wivel, Anders: Danmark, Europa, Verden. 1. udg. Gyldendal, 2012.

Brøndum, Peter og Annegrethe Rasmussen: USA's udfordringer . 1. udg. Columbus , 2012.

6.2 - INTERNETSIDER

Mead, Walter Russel: The Carter Syndrome . I: Foreign policy, 04.01.2010.

Internetadresse: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/18/the_carter_syndrome -

Besøgt d. 04.12.2014 (Internet)

Om at hilse på hinanden . Udgivet af Aminah Tønnsen.

Internetadresse:http://www.islamstudie.dk/etik_leveregler.hilsen.htm - Besøgt d. 01.12.2014

(Internet)

Invocation of Article 5 confirmed. Udgivet af NATO.

Internetadresse:http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm - Besøgt d.

30.11.2014 (Internet)

President Obama: We will ʻdegrade and destroyʼ ISIS. Udgivet af Jane C. Timm. Sidst opdateret:

09.03.2014. Internetadresse: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/president-obama-degrade-

and-destroy-isis - Besøgt d. 03.12.2014 (Internet)

Krigen mod terror. Udgivet af Den Store Danske.

Internetadresse:http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Geografi_og_historie/Magtforhold_og_sammens
pil/terrorisme_%2811._september%29- Besøgt d. 29.11.2014 (Internet)

A New Beginning . Udgivet af Wikipedia .

Internetadresse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Beginning - Besøgt d. 01.12.2014

(Internet)

Side 25

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

22

Nobels fredspris 2009. Udgivet af Wikipedia .

Internetadresse: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobels_fredspris_2009- Besøgt d. 28.11.2014

(Internet)

Mellemøsten ifølge Obama . Udgivet af Steffen Jensen . Sidst opdateret: 05.06.2009.

Internetadresse:http://www.steffen-jensen.dk/dan/blog/93-barack-obama-s-kairo-tale-
mellemosten-ifolge-obama/ - Besøgt d. 28.11.2014 (Internet)

Berlingske Nyhedsbureau : Obama: Vi undervurderede Islamisk Stat. Udgivet af Steffen Jensen .

Sidst opdateret: 29.09.2014. Internetadresse: http://www.b.dk/globalt/obama-vi-

undervurderede-islamisk-stat - Besøgt d. 01.12.2014 (Internet)

Ræson: OBAMAS UDENRIGSPOLITIK ER BLEVET AFSPORET AF IRAK OG UKRAINE. Udgivet af

Philip Chr. Ulrich. Sidst opdateret: 09.09.2014. Internetadresse: http://raeson.dk/2014/analyse-
obamas-udenrigspolitik-er-blevet-afsporet-af-irak-og-ukraine/ - Besøgt d. 03.12.2014 (Internet)

Information : Obama Doktrinen . Udgivet af Vibeke Schou Tjalve . Sidst opdateret: 01.10.12.

Internetadresse:http://www.information.dk/312489 - Besøgt d. 02.12.2014 (Internet)

6.3 – YOUTUBE KLIP

Obama, Barack: IS-tale 10.09.2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spIWGoNZnaU besøgt d. 2.12.2014

Obama, Barack: Kairo-tale 04.08.2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU besøgt d. 2.12.2014

Side 26

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

23

7.1 – BILAG 1

Cairo speech 4. Juni 2009

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 b͏eyond any current policy debate. The relat͏ionship 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 prox͏ies 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 w͏ha͏t͏ I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and

Side 27

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

24 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 ͏E͏nlightenment. ͏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 a͏rena͏s, 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 opportunit͏y for

Side 28

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

25 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 ͏tha͏t ͏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 ͏t͏his ͏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 ͏dealt͏ ͏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 ͏w͏ith ͏Islam. ͏W͏e ͏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.

Side 29

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

26

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ͏ago, ͏the ͏United ͏Stat͏es ͏pursued ͏al ͏Qaeda ͏and ͏the Taliban ͏with ͏broad ͏int͏erna͏t͏ional support. W͏e 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 b͏e 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 t͏o 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

Side 30

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

27 democratically-elected ͏government ͏to ͏remove ͏combat ͏troops ͏from ͏Iraqi ͏cities ͏by ͏July, ͏and ͏to remove all͏ 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 b͏y 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 ͏between͏ ͏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 ͏hist͏orical͏ ͏ties, ͏and ͏the ͏recognition ͏that ͏the ͏aspiration ͏for ͏a ͏Jewish ͏homeland ͏is rooted in a tragic history that cannot ͏b͏e 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 w͏here 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, ͏ig͏n͏orant, ͏and ͏hateful. ͏Threatening ͏Israel ͏with ͏destruction ͏– ͏or repeating vile st͏ereot͏ypes 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 attack͏s 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 ͏w͏ill ͏be ͏blind ͏to ͏the ͏t͏ruth: ͏the ͏only

Side 31

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

28 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, Pal͏estine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all͏ the pat͏ience 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 t͏o 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 ͏dail͏y ͏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 ͏p͏eace. ͏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.

Side 32

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

29

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 na͏tions 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 ͏right͏ ͏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

Side 33

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

30 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 ͏p͏rocess 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 ͏Andal͏usia 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 viol͏ence, ͏particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to l͏ive together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For ͏inst͏ance, 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 ͏a͏s they see fit – for instance, by dictating what cl͏othes a Muslim ͏w͏oman 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

Side 34

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

31

King ͏Abdulla͏h'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 debat͏e 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 b͏e 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 man͏y, 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 ͏importantl͏y ͏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 b͏e the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these

Side 35

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

32 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 ͏l͏eaders, ͏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 not͏ 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

Side 36

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

33 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 shoul͏d 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.

Side 37

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

34

7.2 – BILAG 2

10 sep. 2014

Speech on isis

My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.

As ͏commander-in-chief, ͏my ͏highest ͏priority ͏is ͏the ͏security ͏of ͏the ͏American ͏people. ͏Over ͏the ͏last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out ͏Osama ͏bin ͏Laden ͏and ͏much ͏of ͏al ͏Qaeda's ͏leadership ͏in ͏Afghanistan ͏and ͏Pakistan. ͏We've targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. ͏We've ͏done ͏so ͏while ͏bringing ͏more ͏than ͏140,000 ͏American ͏troops ͏home ͏from ͏Iraq, ͏and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and

small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that

remains ͏true ͏today. ͏That's ͏why ͏we ͏must ͏remain ͏vigilant ͏as ͏threats ͏emerge. ͏At ͏this ͏moment, ͏the greatest ͏threats ͏come ͏from ͏the ͏Middle ͏East ͏and ͏North ͏Africa, ͏where ͏radical ͏groups ͏exploit grievances ͏for ͏their ͏own ͏gain. ͏And ͏one ͏of ͏those ͏groups ͏is ͏ISIL ͏— ͏which ͏calls ͏itself ͏the ͏"Islamic State."

Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the ͏vast ͏majority ͏of ͏ISIL's ͏victims have ͏been ͏Muslim. ͏And ͏ISIL ͏is certainly ͏not ͏a ͏state. ͏It ͏was formerly ͏al-Qaeda's ͏affiliate ͏in ͏Iraq, ͏and ͏has ͏taken ͏advantage ͏of ͏sectarian ͏strife ͏and ͏Syria's ͏civil war ͏to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage.

They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

So ͏ISIL ͏poses ͏a ͏threat ͏to ͏the ͏people ͏of ͏Iraq ͏and ͏Syria, ͏and ͏the ͏broader ͏Middle ͏East ͏— ͏including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting ͏against ͏our ͏homeland, ͏ISIL ͏leaders ͏have ͏threatened ͏America ͏and ͏our ͏allies. ͏Our intelligence ͏community ͏believes ͏that ͏thousands ͏of ͏foreigners ͏— ͏including ͏Europeans ͏and ͏some Americans — have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

Side 38

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

35

I know many Americans ͏are concerned ͏about these threats. ͏Tonight, I ͏want you to know that ͏the United ͏States ͏of ͏America ͏is ͏meeting ͏them ͏with ͏strength ͏and ͏resolve. ͏Last ͏month, ͏I ͏ordered ͏our military ͏to ͏take ͏targeted ͏action ͏against ͏ISIL ͏to ͏stop ͏its ͏advances. ͏Since ͏then, ͏we ͏have ͏conducted more than ͏150 ͏successful ͏airstrikes in Iraq. These ͏strikes ͏have ͏protected ͏American personnel and facilities, ͏killed ͏ISIL ͏fighters, ͏destroyed ͏weapons, ͏and ͏given ͏space ͏for ͏Iraqi ͏and ͏Kurdish ͏forces ͏to reclaim key territory. These strikes have h͏elped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

But this ͏is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis ͏what ͏they ͏must ͏do ͏for ͏themselves, ͏nor ͏can ͏we ͏take ͏the ͏place ͏of ͏Arab ͏partn͏ers ͏in ͏securing their reg͏ion. ͏That's ͏why ͏I've ͏insisted ͏that ͏additional U.S. action depended upon ͏Iraqis ͏forming ͏an inclusive ͏government, ͏which ͏they ͏have ͏now ͏done ͏in ͏recent ͏days. ͏So ͏tonight, ͏with ͏a ͏new ͏Iraqi government ͏in ͏place, ͏and ͏following ͏consultations ͏with ͏allies abroad ͏and ͏Congress ͏at ͏home, ͏I ͏can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.

Our objective is ͏clear: we will degrade, and ͏ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so th͏at ͏we're hitting͏ ͏ISIL targ͏ets ͏as Iraqi ͏forces go ͏on offense. ͏Moreover, I ͏have made ͏it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in S͏yria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, ͏we ͏will ͏increase ͏our ͏support ͏to ͏forces ͏figh͏ting ͏these ͏terrorists ͏on ͏the ͏ground. ͏In ͏J͏une, ͏I deployed ͏several ͏hundred ͏American ͏service ͏members ͏to ͏Iraq ͏to ͏assess ͏how ͏we ͏can ͏best ͏support Iraqi Security Forces. ͏Now that those teams have ͏completed their work — and ͏Iraq has formed a government — we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in ͏Iraq. ͏But ͏they ͏are ͏needed ͏to ͏support ͏Iraqi ͏and ͏Kurdish ͏forces ͏with ͏training, ͏intelligence ͏and equipment. ͏We ͏will ͏also ͏support ͏Iraq's ͏efforts ͏to ͏stand ͏up ͏National ͏Guard ͏Units ͏to ͏help ͏Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL control.

Across ͏the ͏border, ͏in ͏Syria, ͏we ͏have ͏ramped ͏up ͏our ͏military ͏assistance ͏to ͏the ͏Syrian ͏opposition.

Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all.

Third, ͏we ͏will ͏continue ͏to ͏draw ͏on ͏our ͏substantial ͏counterterrorism ͏capabilities ͏to ͏prevent ͏ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our͏ efforts to cut off its funding; improve our

Side 39

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

36 intelligence; ͏strengthen ͏our ͏defenses; ͏counter ͏its ͏warped ͏ideology; ͏and ͏stem ͏the ͏flow ͏of ͏foreign fighters into — and out of — ͏the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.

Fourth, ͏we ͏will ͏continue ͏providing ͏humanitarian ͏assistance ͏to ͏innocent ͏civilians ͏who ͏have ͏been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are ͏at grave risk, as ͏well ͏as ͏tens ͏of ͏thousands ͏of ͏Christians ͏and ͏other ͏religious ͏minorities. ͏We ͏cannot ͏allow ͏these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.

This ͏is ͏our ͏strategy. ͏And ͏in ͏each ͏of ͏these ͏four ͏parts ͏of ͏our ͏strategy, ͏America ͏will ͏be ͏joined ͏by ͏a broad ͏coalition ͏of ͏partners. ͏Already, ͏allies ͏are ͏flying ͏planes ͏with ͏us ͏over ͏Iraq; ͏sending ͏arms ͏and assistance ͏to ͏Iraqi ͏Security ͏Forces ͏and ͏the ͏Syrian ͏opposition; ͏sharing ͏intelligence; ͏and ͏providing billions ͏of ͏dollars ͏in ͏humanitarian ͏aid. ͏Secretary ͏Kerry ͏was ͏in ͏Iraq ͏today ͏meeting ͏with ͏the ͏new government ͏and ͏supporting ͏their ͏efforts ͏to ͏promote ͏unity, ͏and ͏in ͏the ͏coming ͏days ͏he ͏will ͏travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can ͏help ͏mobilize ͏Sunni ͏communities ͏in ͏Iraq ͏and ͏Syria ͏to ͏drive ͏these ͏terrorists ͏from ͏their ͏lands.

This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom; and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.

My Administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I have the authority ͏to ͏address ͏the ͏threat ͏from ͏ISIL. ͏But ͏I ͏believe ͏we ͏are ͏strongest ͏as ͏a ͏nation ͏when ͏the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved — especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the ͏American ͏people ͏to ͏understand ͏how ͏this ͏effort ͏will ͏be ͏different ͏from ͏the ͏wars ͏in ͏Iraq ͏and Afghanistan. ͏It ͏will ͏not ͏involve ͏American ͏combat ͏troops ͏fighting ͏on ͏foreign ͏soil. ͏This ͏counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out ͏terrorists ͏who ͏threaten ͏us, ͏while ͏supporting ͏partners ͏on ͏the ͏front ͏lines, ͏is ͏one ͏that ͏we ͏have successfully ͏pursued ͏in ͏Yemen ͏and ͏Somalia ͏for ͏years. ͏And ͏it ͏is ͏consistent ͏with ͏the ͏approach ͏I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America's core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.

My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. Next week marks 6 years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks; through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back — America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it's been in decades. For all the work that remains,

Side 40

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

37 our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American͏ people every single day — and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future.

Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity ͏and ͏the ͏will ͏to ͏mobilize ͏the ͏world ͏against ͏terrorists. ͏It ͏is ͏America ͏that ͏has ͏rallied ͏the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples' right to determine their own destiny. It is America — our scientists, our doctors, our know-how — that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons ͏so ͏they ͏cannot ͏pose ͏a ͏threat ͏to ͏the ͏Syrian ͏people ͏— ͏or ͏the ͏world ͏— ͏again. ͏And ͏it ͏is America ͏that ͏is ͏helping ͏Muslim ͏communities ͏around ͏the ͏world ͏not ͏just ͏in ͏the ͏fight ͏against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.

America, ͏our ͏endless ͏blessings ͏bestow ͏an ͏enduring ͏burden. ͏But ͏as ͏Americans, ͏we ͏welcome ͏our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia — f͏rom the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East — we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that h͏ave guided our nation since its founding͏. Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. I do ͏so ͏as ͏a ͏Commander-in-Chief ͏who ͏could ͏not ͏be ͏prouder ͏of ͏our ͏men ͏and ͏women ͏in ͏uniform ͏— pilots ͏who ͏bravely ͏fly ͏in ͏the ͏face ͏of ͏danger ͏above ͏the ͏Middle ͏East, ͏and ͏servic͏e-members ͏who support our partners on the ground.

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said. "We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people."

That is the ͏difference ͏we ͏make ͏in ͏the ͏world. ͏And our own ͏safety ͏— ͏our ͏own ͏security ͏— ͏depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for ͏— ͏timeless ͏ideals ͏that ͏will ͏endure ͏long ͏after ͏those ͏who ͏offer ͏only ͏hate ͏and ͏destruction ͏have been vanquished from the Earth.

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

Side 41

SRP December, 2014

Freyja Oline Søgren Borggaard

Marselisborg gymnasium, 3.se1

38

7.3 – BILAG 3

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

besøgt d. 30/11-2014