Posts tonen met het label Accountability. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Accountability. Alle posts tonen

vrijdag 14 maart 2025

DE FEB, DBL & HET 'PETER PRINCIPLE' / COLUMNISTEN LEON KERSTEN, AART DEKKER: 'Die Vijf-Buitenlanders-Regel, dat is nu toch wel Geregeld!?!'- Dat is te hopen.... / 'NOT INVENTED HERE SYNDROOM'

Ik schreef het al vaak: 'op de een of andere manier denken -schrijven onafhankelijk van elkaar op ongeveer hetzelfde moment hetzelfde- Journalist/Columnist Leon Kersten en ik vaak volgens dezelfde lijnen.

Maar Leon is een veel beter geschoolde Journalist; bij hem komen de stukken en andere bijdragen bijna met de regelmaat van de klok, of wanneer zijn opdrachtgevers hem iets vragen. Bij mij moet het veel meer komen van ingevingen, ik moet iets zien dat me triggert, of ik moet een goede kapstok zien te vinden om een boodschap die ik al langer in mijn hoofd heb, vorm te geven. Daarnaast hangt wat ik produceer -zowel wat betreft frequentie, omvang en kwaliteit- ook nog eens af van wat mijn lichaam en geest me op een bepaald moment toestaan. Dat is soms weleens even helemaal niets, maar er kan ook een burst optreden die leidt tot meerdere stukken in korte tijd. Daarnaast is ook de lengte van mijn output mijzelf vaak nog niet eens duidelijk als ik begin, dus het is maar goed dat ik niet altijd gelimiteerd word door de beschikbare hoeveelheid maagdelijk papier; want schrappen kost mij -zeker als ik echt de geest heb- veel meer tijd dan het initiele schrijven. Vooral Journalisten van de Oude School, hebben daar nog weleens moeite mee; zij denken dat als een stuk (te) lang is, mensen het niet lezen. Ik weet door de reacties die ik krijg allang dat er juist een categorie liefhebbers bestaat die ookjuist die lange stukken zeer waardeert. En natuurlijk zijn er 'druk, Druk, DRUK-mensen' die de ausdauer niet hebben om zo'n langer stuk te consumeren en verstouwen, nou ja, die lezen het dan misschien een keertje niet, of haken onderweg af, dat lijkt me ook niet zo erg...tenminste, het aantal lezers van mijn stukken neemt nog steeds snel toe, dus...

Goed, bovenstaande verhandeling moest ik toch eens een keertje kwijt, en dat kon mooi nu; anders zou deze Column een echte 'Shartie'(*) worden, en daar had ik geen zin in vannacht...

Goed Leon Kersten dus; met de regelmaat van de klok produceert hij aan het beging van iedere week een stuk over de voorgaande DBL-competitie-week, zo ook gisteren(maandag).

Kersten begint met het toekennen van zijn 'Haai van de Week'-award; iemand die er de voorgaande week echt uitsprong. Je leest het in zijn complete Column:   --- Hier  ---

En vervolgens sluit hij  zijn eerste DBL-Beschouwing in 2018 met '2x RAAR':

...
.....

"RAAR 1
Afgelopen week las ik deze kop: New Heroes wil vanaf 2019 sportief gaan oogsten.
Je zal dit seizoen toch speler zijn in Den Bosch, er wordt niet veel verwacht. Nu weet ik ook wel hoe koppen worden gemaakt en uitspraken net even anders worden neergezet, maar toch…

RAAR 2
Het duurt nog even maar 8 maart en 12 april staan Forward Lease en Donar tegenover elkaar. Stel nu dat beide coaches telproblemen hebben en beide vijf buitenlanders op het veld zetten.

Ja wat dan?

Sinds deze week heeft Rotterdam, net als Donar, ook vijf buitenlanders (2 Amerikanen, 1 Canadees, 1 Syriër en 1 Belg) onder contract en we zullen zien of men daar wel goed kan tellen.
Overigens snap ik niet waarom er zoveel buitenlanders zijn in Rotterdam. Hoger dan de vijfde plek en 1 rondje play-offs zit er niet in, dus waarom de jeugd geen kans geven. En dan hoop ik maar dat de nieuwelingen gaan verdedigen want dat is al een paar seizoenen een probleem in Rotterdam."
(Leon Kersten)

Het gaat natuurlijk om 'RAAR 2', je zou denken dat:
-na een rel en een opgestapt FEB-Bestuur in de zomer, en na
-de eerste vergissing van Donar/Eric Braal -leergeld; kan gebeuren-, en dan na
-een tweede vergissing van dezelfde club, met
-een draconische oplossing die verderop in het seizoen nog hele vervelende consequenties zou kunnen krijgen  - ik schreef er  ---  Hier  --- ook al over -  het nu toch wel tot in de puntjes geregeld zou zijn, en dat het net rond deze regel/afspraak volkomen sluitend zou zijn...

Nee, dus; dat toont Leon Kersten hierboven keihard aan.

Je kunt er toch met je pet niet bij; Basketball is geen sport voor domme mensen, ik denk ook niet dat de mensen die de regels hebben uitgewerkt, en voorgesteld aan het FEB-Bestuur, en dus ook met alle DBL-clubs besproken (en besloten) hebben, ook wel weet hebben van het 'Peter Principle'?(*1)

Dat principe stelt dat 'in organisaties de meeste mensen promotie maken tot het niveau waarvoor ze eigenlijk niet competent meer zijn', EN, dat 'alles wat fout kan gaan,zeker een keer FOUT ZAL GAAN', EN dat 'dat op het meest ongelegen moment zal gebeuren'.In andere woorden: als je er niet voor zorgt dat je alles en iedereen heel goed organiseert, zodat het systeem en de organisatie echt klopt, je er dan op kan wachten dat het juist fout gaat...voorspelbare fouten dus.

Dus als je afspraken/regels maakt; zorg dan dat die uit ten treure getest en beproefd zijn. Daar heb je misschien wel buitenstaanders voor nodig...Hackers zoals Leon Kersten, ik zei de Gek, maar er zijn zeker vele andere scherpe denkers -betere dan ik, denk ik zo- die na een paar keer een uurtje sparren, en tussendoor wat nachtjes slapen, echt elke maas in het net weten te vinden.

Gebruik die mensen dan ook!

Ga niet onder druk van zaken die al mis zijn gegaan -en de publicitaire druk die daarvan het gevolg is-, en onder tijdsdruk, met allerlei belanghebbenden 'iets' afspreken; neem er even de tijd voor, en laat die duiveltjes er op los! Gaat het zelfs dan nog mis, dan heb je in ieder geval de last van de mogelijke fout verdeeld, kan je zeggen dat je er alles aan gedaan hebt, dat je er zelfs een stel vandalen op los hebt gelaten, loof voor mijn part zelfs een prijs uit voor degene die een maasje weet te vinden, en beklink de afspraken/regels pas na die exercitie. Dan ga je niet zo voor gaas,als al is gebeurd, en -mocht een scenario zoals dat wat Leon Kersten heeft bedacht- zich voordoen,er niet opnieuw nood aan de man komt.

En 'Escape-regeltje', iets als: 'de straf mag nooit dusdanige effecten hebben dat derden zwaar geschaad kunnen worden door...in dat geval beslist een buitenstaander een gepaste maatregel die niet betrokken derden niet schaadt'; met andere woorden, je laat het dan aan bijvoorbeeld de Commissie van Beroep om via een snelrecht-beslissing datgene te beslissen dat een en ander afhandelt zonder Çoleteral Damage', en dus zonder competitievervalsing. Dan creëer je nog wat extra speling voor een noodverband voor het geval dat het ongedachte zich toch voordoet...en voorkom je dat 'die Peter, die van dat Principle' je opnieuw te grazen neemt.

Benut de die in onze basketball-wereld beschikbaar zijn beter.

Betrek er meer mensen bij, wees transparant!

Denk vooral niet dat je het toch wel beter weet, en dat je dus alles alleen, of in zeer beperkte kring, zonder vervelend toekijkende ogen van buiten dus, moet bedisselen.
Val dus niet in de valkuil dat wat 'Not Invented Here' is, niet goed kan zijn!


Dat loopt namelijk altijd fout...
dat zegt die 'Regel van Peter' namelijk al decennia lang...

Wees Wijs!

'I rest my case...for now...'

**


Oh ja, Leon, je weet wij zijn het zelfs zonder overleg, vrijwel altijd met elkaar eens...

Maar met je 'RAAR 1', ben ik het nu eens niet (helemaal) eens...

Ik vind het helemaal niet raar dat de leiding van New Heroes Den Bosch de druk nu nog niet te hoog wil opschroeven. Ik vind het juist verstandig dat ze de laat nog niet maximaal hoog leggen. Juist jij betoogt al enige tijd dat Donar Groningen op dit moment eenzame klasse is, en normaal gesproken het zaakje nog wel een keer zal gaan winnen. Donar is verder dan Den Bosch, meer ervaren, er is meer geld, en de Zesde Man is veel zwaarder dan die in Den Bosch op dit moment. Bovendien is het mijn indruk dat met 'Oogsten in 2019', niet alleen Kampioen van Nederland worden wordt bedoeld, maar ook weer serieus meedoen in Europa. Daar hebben ze echt nog wel even voor nodig. Gebeurt het nu moeilijk voorspelbare toch; stijgt New Heroes zo snel boven zichzelf uit dat het toch in 2019 al Kampioen wordt, dan is dat een luxe-probleem. Als je dan toch problemen moet krijgen, laat het dan niet de teleurstelling van een te vroeg te hoog geprojecteerde lat, maar het luxeprobleem...

Een mooi begin van 2018 Leon; zijn we eindelijk een keertje niet met elkaar eens, dat is op zijn tijd eigenlijk veel leuker!

De Beste Wensen voor 2018 voor Leon Kersten, en ieder ander die dit leest;

dat het voor iedereen in het Nederlandse Baketball maar een heel mooi Basketball-jaar mag worden!


AART DEKKER

(*1) The Peter Principle; enige Quotes:


The Peter Principle The Peter Principle by Laurence J. Peter
1,681 ratings, 3.79 average rating, 180 reviews

The Peter Principle Quotes (showing 1-30 of 30)
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
“In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
“Good followers do not become good leaders.”
Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong
“in most hierarchies, super-competence is more objectionable than incompetence.” He warned that extremely skilled and productive employees often face criticism, and are fired if they don’t start performing worse. Their presence “disrupts and therefore violates the first commandment of hierarchical life: the hierarchy must be preserved.”
Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong
Deze, en nog vele malen meer Quotes:   ---  Hier --

***

(*2) Een 'Shartie' is een echt Korte Column van Aart Dekker(AD)


woensdag 28 april 2021

De slechtste klantenservice allertijden - xs4all

Zojuist retourneerde ik een stukje marketingcommunicatie van xs4all; u weet wel zo van: -'Hoe maak ik een website?' -'Zijn YouTube filmpjes altijd veilig?', en -'Wat kan ik met Google Wave?' en, voor alles: -'Hoe denk jij over het hedendaagse feminisme?', die dus ook! Ik schreef in het dichtgevouwen kaartje (aan de directeur Marketing en Sales van xs4all): -jullie leveren de slechtste klantenservice die ik ooit van een bedrijf ervaren heb...en: -ik ben niet langer gediend van dit soort (valse) marketing-communicatie...en: -wens er verder van verschoond te blijven...en: -...u hoort nog verder van mij via de media! -vriendelijke groeten, Aart Dekker Waarom ben ik zo misnoegd over xs4all? Dat was toch altijd 'de kwaliteitsprovider van Nederland, samen met Demon!?' Ja dat WAS zo! Maar dat is al lang niet meer het geval. Demon bestaat al in het geheel niet meer, want moest in opdracht van moedermaatschappij KPN fuseren met de grotere broer (of misschien wel zus) xs4all. Ik was sinds 1998, redelijk tevreden, klant van Demon. Maar dat veranderde snel na 'de fusie'. Wat bleek namelijk? De technici van beide 'topbedrijven' waren gezamenlijk niet in staat om de emailsystemen van de twee succesvol te integreren tot één. Verder had men ook al zeer veel moeite de marketing en prijsstelling op één lijn te brengen. Dus duurde het niet alleen ruim een jaar voordat ons prijs/prestatiepeil op het zelfde (redelijke) niveau te brengen (en betaalden wij dus ruim een jaar een veel te hoge prijs voor bedenkelijke prestaties... Daarnaast kreeg ik ook problemen met mijn email: het duurde iedere keer na het opstarten 2 minuten (en diverse foutboodschappen) voordat mijn email begon te downloaden. Maar dat was slechts het begin... Niet veel later werd er in het geheel niet meer gedownload... Dus werkte ik geruime tijd (zo'n 6 maanden) via webmail, en spaarde zo zo'n 1000 emails op op webmail. Diverse keren probeerde ik via de helpdesk het probleem op te lossen, maar men kon mij niet afdoende helpen... Op 4 december 2008 om 23:55h zag ik voor het laatst mijn email in via xs4all-webmail. Om 00:05h (bij wijze van vroeg Sinterklaas-cadeau...) waren mijn 1000 emails ineens niet meer te benaderen...ze waren...gewoon weg...!! Natuurlijk hing ik de volgende ochtend direct aan de telefoon bij de helpdesk, bij die fantastische helpdesk... Ik kreeg een soort stagiair aan de lijn, misschien was het 'die puisterige sukkel van het hedendaagse feminisme' uit het TV-spotje dat nu 'on' is, waarschijnlijk op zijn eerste stagedag als VMBO-er!? Na mijn uitleg, en 5 minuten navraag (bij zijn 1 week meer ervaren 'mentor'?), kwam hij terug met een voor mij (maar vooral eerst natuurlijk voor XS4ALL!!) ontluisterende boodschap: hij had 'goed nieuws, en slecht nieuws voor me', het goede nieuws was ik al snel vergeten, het slechtste speelt mij nog tot op vandaag parten: mijn email was verdwenen! Dat wil zeggen: xs4all had mijn 1000 emails gewoon weggegooid na een keten van klunzige, blunderende acties van haar technici; waarschijnlijk waren dat de voorgangers van de koekenbakkers die ik op dat moment aan de lijn had, en daar weer achter. Voor mij was de conclusie simpel: "dan halen jullie mijn bestand toch even terug uit een back-up van gisteren!?". Fluitje van een cent voor een hoogwaardige provider (zoals xs4all immers was, of eigenlijk: pretendeerde (en pretendeert) te zijn immers!? Helaas: fout gedacht! Tot op de dag van vandaag weigert XS4ALL, de club van koekenbakkers en charlatans mij tegemoet te komen... Ja, ik mocht zelf, op Unix-niveau, gaan proberen mijn bestand terug te halen uit 'snapshots'; DAT IS NATUURLIJK TOPSERVICE! Je maakt als 'kwaliteitsprovider' en 'bedrijf dat service hoog in het vaandel heeft' zelf een blunder bij een technische handeling, en dan zeg je tegen de gedupeerde klant: "haal zelf maar terug (op Unix-niveau!!)uit de 'Snapshots' (back-ups)!", da's natuurlijk de ultieme dienstbaarheid naar de door jou gedupeerde klant!! Ik probeerde het op allerlei manieren: xs4all op zijn/haar verantwoordelijkheid te wijzen; het was tevergeefs... Ik schakelde mijn rechtsbijstand-verzekeraar DAS in: degene die me daar hielp probeerde ook alles wat ze kon bedenken: er werden vele brieven geschreven, telefoontjes gepleegd, echt alles! Chapeau daarvoor; dat is dienstbaarheid aan de klant! Maar het was tevergeefs: de meeste brieven werden waarschijnlijk niet eens gelezen, want er kwam nooit antwoord op! Als er een reactie kwam duurde dat vele weken/maanden. En men bleef weigeren het probleem op te lossen! Mijn contactpersoon bij de Rechtsbijstandverzekeraar zei: "ach meneer Dekker AL MIJN COLLEGA'S HEBBEN xs4all-DOSSIERS...". Met andere woorden: 'Kwaliteitsprovider xs4all is een baggerbedrijf wat betreft service!' Men levert gewoon GEEN SERVICE! Uiteindelijk besloten wij niet al te lang geleden dan maar naar de betreffende geschillencommissie te gaan. Providers zijn bij wet verplicht zich bij die geschillencommissie aan te sluiten, uitspraken van die commissie zijn bindend! Wat blijkt: XS4ALL, de Kwaliteitsprovider, is/was GEEN LID van de Geschillencommissie!!! Dat is een bewuste keuze: bij klachten krijgt men een boete, maar (af en toe) de boete betalen is blijkbaar goedkoper dan gewoon fatsoenlijke service leveren als XS4ALL ZELF FOUTEN MAAKT! Ontluisterend! Zoals gezegd: xs4all hoort nog van mij, via de media...dit is het eerste stukje... xs4all is nog niet van mij af!

vrijdag 14 april 2017

TRUMP EEN SENIELE BEJAARDE... / CITAAT / BIZAR INTERVIEW / ONVERANTWOORDELIJK / ALS HET NIET ZO TREURIG WAS: ...dan zou je er heel, heel hard om kunnen lachen..!

Cartoon overgenomen van:
'Pinterest.com/ngsr'
CITAAT(Volkskrant april 2017, & Pauw op 13 april 2017)
"In een interview met de Amerikaanse krant The Wall Street Journal betuigde president Trump ineens zijn liefde voor Janet Yellen, de voorzitter van de Amerikaanse centrale banken, de Fed. Hij is zelfs bereid haar herbenoeming te overwegen als haar termijn op 3 februari volgend jaar afloopt. 'Het is nog vroeg. Maar ik mag haar en ik respecteer haar.'

Het is zijn volgende opvallende ommezwaai. 'Ik houd van een lagerentebeleid. Ik moet daarover een keer eerlijk zijn', aldus Trump. Vorig jaar tijdens de campagne zei hij nog dat hij haar zou vervangen zo gauw haar termijn eindigt in 2018 - alleen al vanwege het feit dat ze geen Republikein was. Yellen was verantwoordelijk voor een 'grote dikke en lelijke zeepbel', aldus de toekomstige president. 'Ze zou zich moeten schamen. Ze houdt zich bezig met politiek en laat zich voor het karretje van Obama spannen. Op die manier zet ze de economie op het verkeerde been.'
"

&


Trump mistakenly says the US bombed Iraq


We zijn nu duidelijk overgestapt van het tempo van een(1) Trump-fiasco per dag, naar twee of meer per dag...


Er is ook een iets langere versie van dit fragment; als je Trumps verhaal over chaocalate cake e.d. niet wilt missen, je vindt het --- Hier ---


&

"NATO is obsolete!"

Twee weken later:

"NATO is not obsolete anymore..."
Getekend: Donald 'fucking' Trump, de leider van de vrije wereld...

Artikel hierover van de Volkskrant.nl   ---  Hier  ---


En dan is er natuurlijk naast de oude senile capo -Trump zelf- ook nog zijn ietwat dommige neefje; de woordvoerder van het Witte Huis, die grossiert in blunders en flaters, dit mannetje gaat ongetwijfeld ontslagen worden, lang voor de grote blonde leider van de USA zelf het terrein -waarschijnlijk gedwongen- zal verlaten...je leest het Volkskrant-artikel over Sean Spicer --- Hier ---

vrijdag 4 november 2016

EU VS. UK / POITIEK / (GEEN) BREXIT / ONVERANTWOORDELIJK: Nigel Farage (Ex(!)-UKIP vergelijkt Labour- en Liberal-kopstukken met Noorse Nazi....

...en bovendien krijgt hij waarschijnlijk ongelijk; ik denk dat Brexit uiteindelijk best weleens niet door zou kunnen gaan...

Had'ie maar niet als voortrekker van een Brexit -na het droppen van 'The Bomb'- hard weg moeten rennen...


Nigel Farage getting in trouble at the EU Parliament again



maandag 29 februari 2016

NIEUWS POLITIEK NEDERLAND / RUTTE-FLUTTE-II EN DE VLUCHTELINGEN / SP / WAARHEID / LEUGENS: 'Oppositie wil opheldering van Rutte over asielprognose'

Het wordt inderdaad hoog tijd dat de pathologische leugenaar Rutte van 'de Doofpot-partij VVD', nu eindelijk eens met de waarheid op de proppen komt... VOORDAT de tikkende tijdbom ontploft met alle gevolgen van dien! Nederland is NIET VOL! Maar vanzelf lossen problemen zoals deze zich nu ook weer niet op...




Originele artikel van NRC.nl, en nog veel meer over dit brandende onderwerp:   ---  Hier  --


Oppositie wil opheldering van Rutte over asielprognose

Volgens Tweede Kamerlid Sharon Gesthuizen (SP) „verdoezelt” Rutte „bewust duidelijke verwachtingen”.


Rutte en Dijkhoff op 11 februari tijdens het debat waarin het kabinet vasthield aan de prognose van 58.000 voor dit jaar.Foto ANP / Valerie Kuypers 

Oppositiepartijen in de Kamer eisen opheldering van premier Mark Rutte (VVD), nu uit onderzoek van NRC en Reporter Radio blijkt dat hij in de Tweede Kamer een andere asielprognose noemt dan waar zijn ambtenaren mee werken.
“We moeten een herhaling van 2015 voorkomen”, zegt D66-Kamerlid Sjoerd Sjoerdsma:
“Toen werd Nederland verrast, met als gevolg dat er met asielzoekers werd gesleept en er lokale spanningen ontstonden. Het kabinet moet zich niet opnieuw laten verrassen, dit keer door zichzelf, door slechte prognoses.”
Volgens Tweede Kamerlid Sharon Gesthuizen (SP) “verdoezelt” Rutte “bewust duidelijke verwachtingen”. De oppositie wil zo snel mogelijk in debat met Rutte. Ook GroenLinks-leider Jesse Klaver zegt dat Rutte “bewust aan een verkeerde inschatting vasthoudt”. Ook CDA en PVV willen zo snel mogelijk opheldering.

Kabinet houdt in openbaar vast aan 58.000

Rutte en staatssecretaris Klaas Dijkhoff (Justitie, VVD) noemen in het openbaar 58.000 als de voorspelde asielinstroom voor 2016. Maar het ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, opvangorganisatie COA en de provincies en de gemeenten die opvangplekken moeten zoeken, werken met het scenario dat er 94.000 asielzoekers naar Nederland komen. Dat blijkt uit interne stukken.
Zo benadrukte de hoogst verantwoordelijke ambtenaar van Dijkhoff drie weken geleden, tijdens intern overleg met die instanties, dat er in de afspraken met provincies en gemeenten voor opvang, het zogenaamde Bestuursakkoord, “wordt uitgegaan van 94.000″. Op datzelfde moment zei Rutte in de Kamer dat het kabinet 58.000 vluchtelingen hanteert als “aantal waarop wij gaan zitten”.
In een reactie op de bevindingen van NRC en Reporter Radio erkent een voorlichter van het ministerie dat “het bestuursakkoord is uitgegaan van 93.600. Dit sluit aan bij het getal waarmee de diensten uit de vreemdelingenketen werken”. Volgens de de voorlichter is dat niet in tegenspraak met wat Rutte tijdens het debat zei. “Het bestuursakkoord was geen expliciet onderdeel van de discussie.”



dinsdag 30 juni 2015

POLITIEK / EU / EURO / GRIEKENLAND: Het Spel is (bijna) Over... Greece Goes LETS, Let's Go To Greece!

Het schaamteloze Kat-en-muis-spel van - de rest van - de Eurozone, IMF en EU met Griekenland, en het Poker van de nieuwe Griekse regering is zo goed als voorbij; eindelijk dat had al jaren geleden moeten gebeuren. Nu gaat waarschijnlijk een nieuwe fase in; als Griekenland 'Nee' zegt en de Trojka daarna niet eieren voor de -schamele rest- waarde van de Griekse Schuld kiest, dan zal er waarschijnlijk een Nieuwe Griekse Economie met twee munten ontstaan...een soort interne LETS-economie voor alles wat de Grieken intern kunnen regelen, en een - wellicht op basis van de Euro voor de rest; lijkt me een hele vooruitgang - hoe pijnlijk ook - voor een groot deel van de Grieken... Maar het idee dat we in een Europese GEMEENSCHAP leven, dat kan wel de vuilnisbak in... Triest! Vooral voor de Grieken...

Een beetje meer solidariteit moet dus blijkbaar van ons als individuele burgers komen; zoals wat meer Griekse producten kopen...of een keertje meer op vakantie naar het mooie Griekenland...

Deze Cartoon komt van voxeurop.eu

En er is natuurlijk een tsunami aan andere sites en publicaties over dit onderwerp, zoals:

www.burgercomite-eu.nl/griekse-of-europese-tragedie


De keuze van bovenstaande twee sites is trouwens wat mij betreft puur gebaseerd op de fraaie cartoons, en niet omdat ik - opinie op - de sites zelf zou willen aanprijzen...

dinsdag 7 april 2015

Een Amerikaanse President die (bijna) een Uur Kan Praten over Buitenlandse Politiek en Zinnige Dingen Blijft Zeggen...Uniek!

Thomas L. Friedman interviewt Barack Obama voor de New York Times over Buitenlandse Politiek en komt tot de conclusie dat er zich een'Obama Doctrine' begint af te tekenen...een Amerikaanse President die gewoon (bijna) een uur lang praat, en geen gekke dingen zegt...uniek!!

Het video-interview:


Het verhaal in tekst (met korte fragmenten in video):
NYT - The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST

Iran and the Obama Doctrine
APRIL 5, 2015


In an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, President Obama says that his policy of engagement in Iran and elsewhere doesn’t mean the United States isn’t ready to defend its interests or that of its allies. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

Thomas L. Friedman

In September 1996, I visited Iran. One of my most enduring memories of that trip was that in my hotel lobby there was a sign above the door proclaiming “Down With USA.” But it wasn’t a banner or graffiti. It was tiled and plastered into the wall. I thought to myself: “Wow — that’s tiled in there! That won’t come out easily.” Nearly 20 years later, in the wake of a draft deal between the Obama administration and Iran, we have what may be the best chance to begin to pry that sign loose, to ease the U.S.-Iran cold/hot war that has roiled the region for 36 years. But it is a chance fraught with real risks to America, Israel and our Sunni Arab allies: that Iran could eventually become a nuclear-armed state.

President Obama invited me to the Oval Office Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.

Video:

President Obama lays out his preference for engagement over isolation in his approach to foreign policy. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing ... people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”

The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. ... We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”

Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be ... sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”

He added: “What I would say to the Israeli people is ... that there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.”

The president gave voice, though — in a more emotional and personal way than I’ve ever heard — to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel’s strategic edge.

With huge amounts of conservative campaign money now flowing to candidates espousing pro-Israel views, which party is more supportive of Israel is becoming a wedge issue, an arms race, with Republican candidates competing over who can be the most unreservedly supportive of Israel in any disagreement with the United States, and ordinary, pro-Israel Democrats increasingly feeling sidelined.

Video:

President Obama lays out his preference for engagement over isolation in his approach to foreign policy. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing ... people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”

The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. ... We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”

Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be ... sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”

He added: “What I would say to the Israeli people is ... that there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.”

The president gave voice, though — in a more emotional and personal way than I’ve ever heard — to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel’s strategic edge.

With huge amounts of conservative campaign money now flowing to candidates espousing pro-Israel views, which party is more supportive of Israel is becoming a wedge issue, an arms race, with Republican candidates competing over who can be the most unreservedly supportive of Israel in any disagreement with the United States, and ordinary, pro-Israel Democrats increasingly feeling sidelined.


Video:

President Obama explains why the nuclear deal is the best, and only, option to keep Israel safe from Iran. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.

“This is an area that I’ve been concerned about,” the president said. “Look, Israel is a robust, rowdy democracy. ... We share so much. We share blood, family. ... And part of what has always made the U.S.-Israeli relationship so special is that it has transcended party, and I think that has to be preserved. There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as ... opposing Israel. There has to be a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to disagree with me on policy without being viewed as anti-Democrat, and I think the right way to do it is to recognize that as many commonalities as we have, there are going to be strategic differences. And I think that it is important for each side to respect the debate that takes place in the other country and not try to work just with one side. ... But this has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. It’s been a hard period.”

You take it personally? I asked.

“It has been personally difficult for me to hear ... expressions that somehow ... this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest — and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”

As for protecting our Sunni Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, the president said, they have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances. And so part of our job is to work with these states and say, ‘How can we build your defense capabilities against external threats, but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [the Islamic State, or ISIS] to choose from. ... I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. ... That’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”

That said, the Iran deal is far from finished. As the president cautioned: “We’re not done yet. There are a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here in the United States Congress.”

On Congress’s role, Obama said he insists on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval. However, he added, “I do think that [Tennessee Republican] Senator Corker, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, is somebody who is sincerely concerned about this issue and is a good and decent man, and my hope is that we can find something that allows Congress to express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives — and ensures that, if in fact we get a good deal, that we can go ahead and implement it.”

Since President Obama has had more direct and indirect dealings with Iran’s leadership — including an exchange of numerous letters with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — than any of his predecessors since Iran’s revolution in 1979, I asked what he has learned from the back and forth.

“I think that it’s important to recognize that Iran is a complicated country — just like we’re a complicated country,” the president said. “There is no doubt that, given the history between our two countries, that there is deep mistrust that is not going to fade away immediately. The activities that they engage in, the rhetoric, both anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, is deeply disturbing. There are deep trends in the country that are contrary to not only our own national security interests and views but those of our allies and friends in the region, and those divisions are real.”

But, he added, “what we’ve also seen is that there is a practical streak to the Iranian regime. I think they are concerned about self-preservation. I think they are responsive, to some degree, to their publics. I think the election of [President Hassan] Rouhani indicated that there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with the international community, an emphasis on the economics and the desire to link up with a global economy. And so what we’ve seen over the last several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for a long time to move in a different direction. It’s not a radical break, but it’s one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression of that.”

What about Iran’s supreme leader, who will be the ultimate decider there on whether or not Iran moves ahead? What have you learned about him?

Video:

President Obama explains why Iran does not need to have nuclear weapons to be a regional powerhouse. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.


“He’s a pretty tough read,” the president said. “I haven’t spoken to him directly. In the letters that he sends, there [are] typically a lot of reminders of what he perceives as past grievances against Iran, but what is, I think, telling is that he did give his negotiators in this deal the leeway, the capability to make important concessions, that would allow this framework agreement to come to fruition. So what that tells me is that — although he is deeply suspicious of the West [and] very insular in how he thinks about international issues as well as domestic issues, and deeply conservative — he does realize that the sanctions regime that we put together was weakening Iran over the long term, and that if in fact he wanted to see Iran re-enter the community of nations, then there were going to have to be changes.”

Since he has acknowledged Israel’s concerns, and the fact that they are widely shared there, if the president had a chance to make his case for this framework deal directly to the Israeli people, what would he say?

“Well, what I’d say to them is this,” the president answered. “You have every right to be concerned about Iran. This is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas and is a big country with a big population and has a sophisticated military. So Israel is right to be concerned about Iran, and they should be absolutely concerned that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” But, he insisted, this framework initiative, if it can be implemented, can satisfy that Israeli strategic concern with more effectiveness and at less cost to Israel than any other approach. “We know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’

“We know that if we do nothing, other than just maintain sanctions, that they will continue with the building of their nuclear infrastructure and we’ll have less insight into what exactly is happening,” Obama added. “So this may not be optimal. In a perfect world, Iran would say, ‘We won’t have any nuclear infrastructure at all,’ but what we know is that this has become a matter of pride and nationalism for Iran. Even those who we consider moderates and reformers are supportive of some nuclear program inside of Iran, and given that they will not capitulate completely, given that they can’t meet the threshold that Prime Minister Netanyahu sets forth, there are no Iranian leaders who will do that. And given the fact that this is a country that withstood an eight-year war and a million people dead, they’ve shown themselves willing, I think, to endure hardship when they considered a point of national pride or, in some cases, national survival.”

The president continued: “For us to examine those options and say to ourselves, ‘You know what, if we can have vigorous inspections, unprecedented, and we know at every point along their nuclear chain exactly what they’re doing and that lasts for 20 years, and for the first 10 years their program is not just frozen but effectively rolled back to a larger degree, and we know that even if they wanted to cheat we would have at least a year, which is about three times longer than we’d have right now, and we would have insights into their programs that we’ve never had before,’ in that circumstance, the notion that we wouldn’t take that deal right now and that that would not be in Israel’s interest is simply incorrect.”

Because, Obama argued, “the one thing that changes the equation is when these countries get a nuclear weapon. ... Witness North Korea, which is a problem state that is rendered a lot more dangerous because of their nuclear program. If we can prevent that from happening anyplace else in the world, that’s something where it’s worth taking some risks.”

“I have to respect the fears that the Israeli people have,” he added, “and I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu is expressing the deep-rooted concerns that a lot of the Israeli population feel about this, but what I can say to them is: Number one, this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, and number two, what we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there. And I think the combination of a diplomatic path that puts the nuclear issue to one side — while at the same time sending a clear message to the Iranians that you have to change your behavior more broadly and that we are going to protect our allies if you continue to engage in destabilizing aggressive activity — I think that’s a combination that potentially at least not only assures our friends, but starts bringing down the temperature.”


Video:

President Obama on the complexity and “practical streak” of the Iranian regime. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.



There is clearly a debate going on inside Iran as to whether the country should go ahead with this framework deal as well, so what would the president say to the Iranian people to persuade them that this deal is in their interest?

If their leaders really are telling the truth that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, the president said, then “the notion that they would want to expend so much on a symbolic program as opposed to harnessing the incredible talents and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the Iranian people, and be part of the world economy and see their nation excel in those terms, that should be a pretty straightforward choice for them. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region. For that matter, what I’d say to the Iranian people is: You don’t need to be anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or anti-Sunni to be a powerhouse in the region. I mean, the truth is, Iran has all these potential assets going for it where, if it was a responsible international player, if it did not engage in aggressive rhetoric against its neighbors, if it didn’t express anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment, if it maintained a military that was sufficient to protect itself, but was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region, by virtue of its size, its resources and its people it would be an extremely successful regional power. And so my hope is that the Iranian people begin to recognize that.”

Clearly, he added, “part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past. ... But if we’re able to get this done, then what may happen — and I’m not counting on it — but what may happen is that those forces inside of Iran that say, ‘We don’t need to view ourselves entirely through the lens of our war machine. Let’s excel in science and technology and job creation and developing our people,’ that those folks get stronger. ... I say that emphasizing that the nuclear deal that we’ve put together is not based on the idea that somehow the regime changes.

Video:

President Obama on the breakdown of bipartisan debate over Israel and his personal affinity with the Israeli people. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.



“It is a good deal even if Iran doesn’t change at all,” Obama argued. “Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they’re doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.”

There are several very sensitive points in the framework agreement that are not clear to me, and I asked the president for his interpretation. For instance, if we suspect that Iran is cheating, is harboring a covert nuclear program outside of the declared nuclear facilities covered in this deal — say, at a military base in southeastern Iran — do we have the right to insist on that facility being examined by international inspectors?

“In the first instance, what we have agreed to is that we will be able to inspect and verify what’s happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz,” the president said. “What that means is that we’re not just going to have a bunch of folks posted at two or three or five sites. We are going to be able to see what they’re doing across the board, and in fact, if they now wanted to initiate a covert program that was designed to produce a nuclear weapon, they’d have to create a whole different supply chain. That’s point number one. Point number two, we’re actually going to be setting up a procurement committee that examines what they’re importing, what they’re bringing in that they might claim as dual-use, to determine whether or not what they’re using is something that would be appropriate for a peaceful nuclear program versus a weapons program. And number three, what we’re going to be doing is setting up a mechanism whereby, yes, I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors can go anyplace.”

Anywhere in Iran? I asked.

“That we suspect,” the president answered. “Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, ‘No, you can’t come here.’ So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”

A lot of people, myself included, will want to see the fine print on that. Another issue that doesn’t seem to have been resolved yet is: When exactly do the economic sanctions on Iran get lifted? When the implementation begins? When Iran has been deemed to be complying fully?

“There are still details to be worked out,” the president said, “but I think that the basic framework calls for Iran to take the steps that it needs to around [the Fordow enrichment facility], the centrifuges, and so forth. At that point, then, the U.N. sanctions are suspended; although the sanctions related to proliferation, the sanctions related to ballistic missiles, there’s a set of sanctions that remain in place. At that point, then, we preserve the ability to snap back those sanctions, if there is a violation. If not, though, Iran, outside of the proliferation and ballistic missile issues that stay in place, they’re able to get out from under the sanctions, understanding that this constant monitoring will potentially trigger some sort of action if they’re in violation.”

There are still United States sanctions that are related to Iran’s behavior in terrorism and human rights abuse, though, the president added: “There are certain sanctions that we have that would remain in place because they’re not related to Iran’s nuclear program, and this, I think, gets to a central point that we’ve made consistently. If in fact we are able to finalize the nuclear deal, and if Iran abides by it, that’s a big piece of business that we’ve gotten done, but it does not end our problems with Iran, and we are still going to be aggressively working with our allies and friends to reduce — and hopefully at some point stop — the destabilizing activities that Iran has engaged in, the sponsorship of terrorist organizations. And that may take some time. But it’s our belief, it’s my belief, that we will be in a stronger position to do so if the nuclear issue has been put in a box. And if we can do that, it’s possible that Iran, seeing the benefits of sanctions relief, starts focusing more on the economy and its people. And investment starts coming in, and the country starts opening up. If we’ve done a good job in bolstering the sense of security and defense cooperation between us and the Sunni states, if we have made even more certain that the Israeli people are absolutely protected not just by their own capacities, but also by our commitments, then what’s possible is you start seeing an equilibrium in the region, and Sunni and Shia, Saudi and Iran start saying, ‘Maybe we should lower tensions and focus on the extremists like [ISIS] that would burn down this entire region if they could.’ ”

Regarding America’s Sunni Arab allies, Obama reiterated that while he is prepared to help increase their military capabilities they also need to increase their willingness to commit their ground troops to solving regional problems.

“The conversations I want to have with the Gulf countries is, first and foremost, how do they build more effective defense capabilities,” the president said. “I think when you look at what happens in Syria, for example, there’s been a great desire for the United States to get in there and do something. But the question is: Why is it that we can’t have Arabs fighting [against] the terrible human rights abuses that have been perpetrated, or fighting against what Assad has done? I also think that I can send a message to them about the U.S.’s commitments to work with them and ensure that they are not invaded from the outside, and that perhaps will ease some of their concerns and allow them to have a more fruitful conversation with the Iranians. What I can’t do, though, is commit to dealing with some of these internal issues that they have without them making some changes that are more responsive to their people.”

One way to think about it, Obama continued, “is [that] when it comes to external aggression, I think we’re going to be there for our [Arab] friends — and I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.” But, he repeated, “The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. Now disentangling that from real terrorist activity inside their country, how we sort that out, how we engage in the counterterrorism cooperation that’s been so important to our own security — without automatically legitimizing or validating whatever repressive tactics they may employ — I think that’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”

Video:


President Obama on the “dangers” that arise when lawmakers breach traditional channels of foreign policy. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. By A.J. Chavar, Quynhanh Do, David Frank, Abe Sater and Ben Werschkul on Publish Date April 5, 2015. Photo by Todd Heisler/The New York Times.



It feels lately like some traditional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches, when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy, have been breached. For instance, there was the letter from 47 Republican senators to Iran’s supreme leader cautioning him on striking any deal with Obama not endorsed by them — coming in the wake of Prime Minister Netanyahu being invited by the speaker of the House, John Boehner, to address a joint session of Congress — without consulting the White House. How is Obama taking this?

“I do worry that some traditional boundaries in how we think about foreign policy have been crossed,” the president said. “I felt the letter that was sent to the supreme leader was inappropriate. I think that you will recall there were some deep disagreements with President Bush about the Iraq war, but the notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats sending letters to leaders in the region or to European leaders ... trying to undermine the president’s policies I think is troubling.

“The bottom line,” he added, “is that we’re going to have serious debates, serious disagreements, and I welcome those because that’s how our democracy is supposed to work, and in today’s international environment, whatever arguments we have here, other people are hearing and reading about it. It’s not a secret that the Republicans may feel more affinity with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views of the Iran issue than they do with mine. But [we need to be] keeping that within some formal boundaries, so that the executive branch, when it goes overseas, when it’s communicating with foreign leaders, is understood to be speaking on behalf of the United States of America, not a divided United States of America, making sure that whether that president is a Democrat or a Republican that once the debates have been had here, that he or she is the spokesperson on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. And that’s clear to every leader around the world. That’s important because without that, what you start getting is multiple foreign policies, confusion among foreign powers as to who speaks for who, and that ends up being a very dangerous — circumstances that could be exploited by our enemies and could deeply disturb our friends.”

As for the Obama doctrine — “we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities” — the president concluded: “I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it. But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement — and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations — and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors.”

Whatever happened in the past, he said, “at this point, the U.S.’s core interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial. ... Our core interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them, that massive displacements aren’t taking place. Our interests in this sense are really just making sure that the region is working. And if it’s working well, then we’ll do fine. And that’s going to be a big project, given what’s taken place, but I think this [Iran framework deal] is at least one place to start.”

Charles M. Blow’s column will appear on this page tomorrow.

A longer version of this column, and video clips fromthe interview, are at nytimes.com/opinion.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 6, 2015, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: The Obama Doctrine and Iran. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe


COMMENTS: (10 door NYT geselecteerde reacties van de bijna 1000):

bemused ct. Yesterday
Most of what I have read in the commentary section that is disapproving of the President's statement seem rooted in an insecurity that is baffling. The lives of many thousands of people and the security of Israel are at stake. It seems childish to approve of a status quo that is about perpetual fear and violence. It seems childish to worry about being made a "fool" of when the stakes are so high.

Why are we so afraid of Iran if we are no.1,the purveyers of American "exceptionalism" and the most powerful nation on earth? This is immature bluster and the sign that we are a fearful nation. Other nations see this and use it to our detriment. Talking tough doesn't make it so.

As a combat veteran, I am proud that I am represented by a President who shows confidence in our strength and asserts our resolve by his willingness to take chances. He shows exceptional courage in his efforts to try for something different. He has done this against great political odds here at home.

Meanwhile, many would rather support the draft-dodging chickenhawks who play on their fear. Obama does know our might and our potential. He deserves our respect and support. He also knows we can always exert that power,but, that that is never the first option for a confident nation. The dogs of war are not easily leashed and a pick-up truck with a gun rack doesn't make you a man.

Reply 597Recommend
NYT Pick
Colin Sydney Yesterday
There are always a number of sides to any issue... And when you hear the reasoning all seem correct.

One question above all others has not been asked ... I say this as it did not feature in the interview... A simple yet crucial question that any great interviewer would know to ask.

Why did Obama not link the relaxing of many of his initial tough stance points to Iran accepting that the state of Israel has a right to exist.

Were that made an integral negotiating issue then Israel, Netanyahu and the rest of the ISRAELI cabinet and Jews throughout the world would be able to look upon Obama's 6 year negotiations with Iran with Pride and side with Obama.

If he didn't do it then, he can do it in the next 3 months and if Iran won't accept the existence of the state of Israel it is self evident that their nuclear program is not for peaceful purposes ... And in fact, they may even already have a nuclear bomb.

Any deal is a good deal if linked to Iran's acceptance of the state of Israel.

Reply 48Recommend
NYT Pick
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, MI Yesterday
It is always important to understand the thinking of the opponent in negotiations. There is no need to agree with that thinking, just to understand it. I am reassured then that Obama gets it, can say it, so he knows with what he is dealing:

“part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. . . .the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats"

Of course there is more to it than just that, but those are the things that stand out to the other side, as every country sees first the dangers to itself in past harms to itself.

This is the sort of insight that makes a deal possible.

Reply 319Recommend
NYT Pick
Michael S is a trusted commenter Wappingers Falls, NY Yesterday
The President's reasoning lacks some understanding of the transactional realities. Looking at it from the Iranian point of view what do they have to lose? The day Iran decides to bar inspection or any other act that would pull the plug on the agreement they are ahead of the game unless and until the USA gets our allies to put the sanctions back into place - and it is by no mean certain our allies can be brought back into line.

It took many years for the sanctions to bite. A suspension of sanction gives Iran time to put in place workarounds, the price of oil wil in any event go back up and Iran will have developed important economic relations with some of the current sanctioning countries. Time is on Iran's side.

Reply 34Recommend
NYT Pick
adam Nyc Yesterday
He did a poor job of asking about the president's opinion of Iran's intentions. The most important question relating to Iran's intentions is: what would you say to people who say that Iran is led by religious zealots and their ultimate goals cannot be changed by appealing to improved economic status? That their desire to destroy Israel and America is rooted not in pragmatic fear from past experiences, but in religious ideology that defines western lifestyle and Jews as evil?

In the answer to that question lies the truth of whether this is a good deal. For if the above description is correct then all sanction relief will do is give them more leverage to chase those ends in the years to come. But based on Obama's answers he bought the Iranian line of "we are building nukes for national pride" and "we hate America because of its past" hook line and sinker and is willing to ignore plenty of evidence that these positions are nothing more than an external persona in the hopes that he can change them. For all our sakes let's hope he's not as naive as that position appears to be. Although his "reset" with Russia suggests the "Obama doctrine" might be just as naive as it seems...

Reply 71Recommend
NYT Pick
Hophmi New York Yesterday
This interview signifies two important developments. The first is that by defining the top US priority as peace in the region, rather than support for US allies, Obama is shifting to an approach that is more European in nature. The second is that it seems as though the President is naive on at least two accounts. First, the notion that prioritizing peace can be achieved by seeking a comprehensive deal with Iran may be wrongheaded and achieve exactly the result we've seen in the last three or four years - regional chaos. The second is that the notion that the US faces little risk from Iran because the US spends more of defense is belied by the last two decades, which has shown how assymetrical warfare can be exploited by countries like Iran, who can fund guerrilla terrorist groups that the US cannot stop with fancy bombs.

For all of Prime Minister Netanyahu's bluster, the truth is that his main point is essentially correct, especially if the President's belief in the essential rationality and desire to join the world economy of Iranian policymakers is true. An extended sanctions regime would produce a better deal.

Reply 53Recommend
NYT Pick
Phillip 10016 Yesterday
This interview speaks to what will be Mr. Obama's most enduring legacies, and he has shown himself to be a thoughtful, pragmatic, and mature statesman.

We should recognize three things about economic sanctions. First they are incredibly powerful - witness the implosion of the economies of North Korea and Iran, with plummeting currency, little foreign investment, and falling national production. Second, they require the cooperation of our neighbors: if Europe, or Russia, or China does not agree to sanctions, then they are not nearly as effective. Finally, sanctions in themselves do not achieve the foreign policy goals we have - witness again that N. Korea - while it's people are impoverished and starving - has developed its nuclear capabilities. Moving to a diplomatic solution is the whole point of setting up sanctions, and is the next logical step.

Reply 642Recommend
NYT Pick
Phil Simpson Arlington VA Yesterday
Iran has repeatedly lied and broken international promises in the past. Can anyone say with a straight face their behavior during these negotiations reflect a significant departure from years of duplicity? Yes it's better to engage than go to war. But is it better to play the fool than demand real trust-building conditions such as anywhere, anytime inspections ?

Reply 66Recommend
NYT Pick
cdearman Santa Fe, NM Yesterday
Excellent article, though I don't think those disagree with the President will be convinced that an international agreement is the way to go. Those who disagree, however, don't have an equally good alternative to the President's approach. They don't seem to understand that knowledge once gained cannot be destroyed.

Reply 320Recommend
NYT Pick
rfrigo Minneapolis, Minnesota Yesterday
The previously self-proclaimed "Obama Doctrine" of foreign affairs was "don't do stupid stuff". I wish they would go back to that. While it was easy to cast aside the concerns of many Cuban Americans with respect to the Cuban engagement strategy (i.e., opening up relations without substantive agreements on both human rights and the expropriation of assets by the Castro regime), the stakes with Iran are much higher. Iran is close to procuring nuclear capabilities that will significantly destabilize the region and create a global threat to our interests. While it is nice to think that if we are kind to them they will be our friends and play nice with us, that is not how the world works. What happened with the engagement through the "reset" button Hilary brought to Russia? In exchange for our show of willingness to engage as friends, they invaded the Ukraine and our now harassing our allies in Europe. Similarly, China is building islands in Asian waters to claim territory and advance their naval ambitions. Thugs like Russia, China, and Iran don't seek engagement. They seek to further their ambitions, and when we show weakness, they strike.

Obama does not deserve a "trust me" moment here. If the Iran deal ends up working out like the Russian Reset debacle, the price we will pay will be very large indeed. He is too busy attempting to justify that Nobel Peace prize to ensure that any deal signed is verifiable, enforceable, and has sufficient penalties.




View all 894 commentsbij het originele artikel -- Hier --