Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Great Speeches Full of Empty Promises? "

November 10, 2009

Andrey Chubyk, Centre for Global Studies “Strategy XXI”, Silver Contributor (62)

0

I like this comment! What's this?

I would not consider these speeches as something going over simply respect of Germany and great event, happened 20 years ago.

But at the same time leaders of the top countries expressed rather imminence as desires of own countries upon dealing with challenges, which modern world is faced. If they would not try to solve mentioned problems in their origin places, they will be transfered on the territory of highly-developed countries, negatively affecting their citizens and well-being.

If some one doesn't understand it, it is just on time to do it as soon as possible.

November 10, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

1

I like this comment! What's this?

The best part of the speeches were the remeberances of what transpired 20 years ago. While there will continue to be ongoing debate as to the exact influce of Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, Lech Walsea, Vaclav Havel, and Gorbachev, at the end of the day, a confluence of events and unique personalities led to a surprising outcome- a largely peaceful transition from authoritarianism to relative freedom.

We should all take pride from across the Atlantic as to this achievement and rememeber it as an example that hope can, even if it does not always, make positive changes.

As to the promises and comments aimed towards the future- everything said is completely conventional wisdom. The enitre notion of bringing down metaphorical walls is so common place as to be practically irrelevant.

Indeed, the paens to future cooperation are nothing more than rhetorical flourishes. Necessary though they are, they really don't mean much other than confirm that political leaders will always find the most optimistic things to say, no matter how conventional and, perhaps, vapid.

That said, it is to be expected but we should be less than sanguine about calls for future action. They should be seen for what they are, rhetorical devices that obfuscate the fundamental trends and interests of individual nations.

All in all, the rememberance was full of meaning; the promises, not empty but far from full.

November 10, 2009

Florian Kuhne, Freie Universität Berlin, Gold Contributor (116)

1

I like this comment! What's this?

I think gatherings like this are in vogue for having a good cause stating something which is likely to be heared but not very profound. Take as example the speech by Mrs Merkel, who said that the world needs to address problems in conjunction, not uni- or bilaterally. This is an obsolete statement and does not go beyond a proposition already heard and already discussed. In my opinion, meetings like yesterday are not very helpful in making substantive policy, after all its not even possible because there are cameras everywhere, a lot of people who would like to be talked with and so on. I guess, backroom-diplomacy can bring better results. Remind Obama talking in Cairo earlier this year. He went about the relations of US and MENA, almost everywhere applauded by listeners. Some months later he sends in more troops, enlarges American military influence worldwide, spends more money for the military apparatus and so on.
The more listeners you have attending "great speeches" like yesterday, the more carefully those speeches should be taken.

November 10, 2009

Stefan G. Ducich, Atlantic Council, Bronze Contributor (16)

1

I like this comment! What's this?

Last night's celebrations were full of symbolism for past, present, and (hopefully) future achievements towards greater freedom and liberty, and to a certain extent the format of the speeches given followed a tried and true optimism for such ceremonies. But I disagree in the interpretation of their meaning: they were not meant only to inspire and congratulate.

Much like Obama's Cairo speech, the intent and the underlying message were what was important. In June, Obama aimed to improve relations and win the 'hearts and minds' of the Arab world. I think it is a mistake to discount the reach of last night's podium. Hillary Clinton stood before receptive Berliners (and Obama was able to broadcast a message directly into the heart of Germany) to say that the price of freedom was greater responsibility. In a time when American attention is focused on its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is this call to "overcoming walls" in the 21st century not a veiled request?

November 10, 2009

chris poelker

2

I like this comment! What's this?

It is amazing that Europe has such a short term memory of the cold war. Obviously the man most responsible for the iron curtain coming down was the man that said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." His name was Ronald Reagan. There didn't seem to be enough appreciation of him at the 20th anniversary of the wall coming down.

November 11, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

1

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for bringing that up Mr. Poelker. I found an article published a couple of days ago by Time on this subject: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1933194,00.html

November 13, 2009

Vanessa Louise Moore, Unlock Democracy, (2)

1

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm tempted to view all these speeches with some skepticism. Of course there will be calls for united action because I agree with Mr Lawson's comments - these are rhetorical devices, and are completely what is to be expected from this type of commemorative event. However, I take the comments about bringing down metaphorical walls as complete rhetoric. How come, after the fall of the Berlin wall, do these leaders ignore the fact that at this moment, the Israelis are continuing to build walls around the Palestinians? If they allow the building of real walls then how can they possibly prevent metaphorical ones!
And one side issue - if Europe was seen to be as important by the US now as it was during the Cold War, why did Barack Obama not personally visit the celebrations? It seems to me that Obama is neglecting his European allies.

November 14, 2009

Laura Kline, NYU MSGA, Bronze Contributor (17)

1

I like this comment! What's this?

While these speeches are hopeful in tone, action remains to be seen. I agree with Ms. Moore in her assessment that to a large degree, this is simply rhetoric. Take Gordon Brown, who holds up Darfur as an example of a dire situation where action is needed. Certainly the talk of Darfur over the past few years has far outweighed the action taken.

This was an occasion to celebrate, and I do not intend to diminish the significance of the day…of course these politicians sound hopeful, and their rhetoric was appropriate for the event. But the question posed is about rhetoric vs. empty promises. Pragmatically speaking, real action to knock down walls will happen only when it is to the political benefit of the country wielding the ax.

November 15, 2009

Kenneth T. Tellis

0

I like this comment! What's this?

Yes! no one can deny that fall of the Berlin Wall was the best thing that happened 20 years ago and it took more than one person to make it happen, so lets keep that in mind.

While the Iron Curtain fell in 1991, there was still the Bamboo Cutain in China that kept people in bondage. Of course no one mentions it but the White Curtain that enslaved millions of people in South Africa fell in 1993.

Today, there is one last curtain that must fall. It is the Poutine Curtain of QUEBEC, Canada. where people are discriminated against for RACE, RELIGION and LANGUAGE since 1974. So when is the world going to take action and make the same demand against Canada as Canada took against APARTHEID in South Africa? The federal government of Canada has used every means to protect the RACISM of the province of Quebec,because it needs viotes. In Quebec you can be shot by the POLICE if you do not belong to the majority Metis RACE. Of course Fredy Villanueva an 18-year old Honduran boy was not aware of this and was gunned down in full public view by two Montreal Police Officers in August 2008. Fredy Villanueva did not have a chance because he was not even armed.

But the Government of Quebec made lighy of the death of Fredy Villanueva by saying that he was not Metis (QUEBECOIS) and that his death was not important. The police officers involved were given awards,just as they did in the South Africa of APARTHEID Days did when an African was killed by the police.

So, let us all get together and bring down Quebec's POUTINE WALL, otherwise more innocent people will be killed by the thugs who are similar to the GESTAPO, but style themselves as Police Officers.

November 15, 2009

Alina Marta Trzcińska, Jagiellonian University of Cracow, (1)

0

I like this comment! What's this?

The speeches of the top rank politicians such as US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton or Nicola Sarkozy and Gordon Brown were merely verbal performances lacking any exact solutions to overcome the EXISTING WALLS but expressing good will and intentions to cooperate.

Their presence, their words and gestures have had solely symbolic meaning.

I saw the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin wall as a tribute to the participants of that events, VOLKS of Europe, a transnational network of citizens of Europe who in 1989 voiced their NO to communism in Warsaw, Budapest, East Berlin in Prague.

The responsibility of tearing down the remaining walls in the world does not lie in the hands of politicians and NO they are not up to the challenge, as they were not at the time the Berlin Wall was raised and when it came down.

No, President Reagan is not the father of Unified Germany and democratic Europe, neither is Mr. Gorbachev or Chancellor Kohl. The change came up from below. A “bottom-top” miracle swept through Europe in 1989. It was the heroism of Lech Wałęsa, Vaclav Havel and thousands of East and West Berliners.

The story of 1989 will repeat itself. Should the walls that are still standing come down, they will cease to exist due to the inter-cultural dialogue, inter-national renunciation of violence. The future changes will come from below. And the symbolic speeches commemorating the future victories of ordinary people will remain decorative elements of such ceremonies.

------- Alina Trzcińska

November 15, 2009

Edward Simon Okun, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, (3)

0

I like this comment! What's this?

I don’t see any specific promises being made in the speeches by these world leaders, and so I agree with the general sentiment of the other members on this thread.

The purpose of these speeches is to set a general tone and tenor by which people who are in positions that affect change are inspired to do so. Therefore the speeches which were made by these leaders are commendable for the content and the spirit from which they emanate.

November 16, 2009

Forrest Kilimnik, University of Leipzig, (4)

0

I like this comment! What's this?

As is characteristic with most political speeches, handpicked language and presentation are common features that are meant to set a general mood for an event. This being the case, the speeches given on November 9, 2009 for the commemoration of the fall of the Berlin Wall did exactly what they were meant to, instill a feeling of collective European memory while drawing a narrative throughout the events of 1989. Having said this, the talks of walls, both tangible and not, fail to create a feeling of dedication from the separate leaders. From these unfulfilled pledges, although commemorative, one must remember the people of the ensnared states brought about the revolutionary events of 1989. This is not to say that the politicians, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, did not have a significant impact on the situations but more that the people were the vehicles in which these changes occurred. In this sense, I agree with the abovementioned comment that the “volks” of Europe expedited the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. Accordingly, the troubles of division that the leaders call to be mended are measured against the lethargy of the international community, which to date has a poor record in putting to an end the afflictions of the world’s communities. Therefore, the memorial of the fall of the Berlin Wall may be a better reminder that the populations of the globe have the capacity to bring about change, with or without the political elite.

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

November 10, 2009 | 12 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

Great Speeches Full of Empty Promises?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?