U.S. Continues to Face Issues with Foreign Distrust

Updated version of column, including my professor's corrections. 

Every president has given a speech somewhere at some time during their presidential term. Over the past few centuries, presidents have been traveling abroad for some of these speeches during hard, treacherous times – whether it was during a war or some other international conflict. Reactions that have been seen across the world have varied throughout each presidency but times seem to be changing when it comes to reactions that President Barack Obama has already received during the first few months as president.

Past presidents have dealt with communism, terrorism, nationalism and several other factors. Now that the deadliest part of the Iraq War seems to be over, since the fall of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, Obama seems to be picking up all the pieces that President George W. Bush left in the Middle East. Every president seems to have the same goal when it comes to relations with other countries. Spread peace, as well as democracy of course. However, not all presidents have followed through with their promises of peace. (Note: The first version of the article read that the Iraq War was over. That's far from the truth. The idea was meant to be that the worse part of the war seems to be over because today's casualties are no where near those that occurred at the beginning of the war.)

Former President George W. Bush compared the Iraq War and Cold War in a speech directed to the Military Officers Association of America, according to The Christian Science Monitor. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," Bush said.

When Ronald Reagan presented his speech at the Berlin Wall during the Cold War on June 12, 1987, his advisers were cautious about the content of his speech and the impact that it would have, according to TIME Magazine. On the way to the location, his advisers were still undecided, especially about one of his advisers', Peter Robinson's, addition to the speech, “Tear down this wall.”

TIME Magazine also reported that TASS, the Soviet news agency, referred to his speech as "openly provocative, war-mongering.” At the time, the speech sounded provocative to many German citizens, as well as other country leaders, as though Reagan was doing more than just challenging Gorbachev to get rid of the wall. However, when listened to today, it does not seem as off the wall as history has portrayed.

In the end, Reagan decided that the full speech needed to be said no matter how “provocative” his advisers believed it to be. He told them that reading the full context of the speech was “the right thing to do,” according to History Net . Obviously, Reagan made a good decision to go against his advisers and challenge Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall.

Two years after Reagan's initial speech in May 1989, Gorbachev visited West Germany and said that Moscow would no longer try to stop democracy from converting in the outlying states, according to the Cold War Museum Website. On August 9, 1989, Günter Schabowski, leader of East Berlin’s communist party, said that citizens of Germany could begin to travel abroad from East to West Germany and vice versa.


Several presidents have traveled to Berlin, before and after Reagan's speech. President John F. Kennedy traveled to Berlin during a tense time but Reagan seemed to have a better impact on getting something jump started because he had the guts to be forward with what he wanted Gorbachev to do. Barack Obama also traveled to Berlin. He went as a senator, not as president. News Week Magazine named Obama’s biggest threat at the time as “anti-Americanism, not the Soviets...he had no wall to point to, or enemy to call by name.” (Note to readers: I realize that I brought Kennedy back from the dead to visit Berlin AFTER Reagan's speech. That did not happen, at least not to anyone's knowledge.)

Obama may not have been faced with an enemy at the time, but after taking presidency, he has since travelled abroad to spread his message to less trusting countries. His trip to Cairo University in Egypt received mixed reviews from Muslims, such as calling the speech unrealistic.

Obama’s speech was made during a time when there are fewer believers as far as having trust in what other leaders say they will do during their time of rule. According to the NPR Website, Iran’s supreme leader reacted to Obama’s speech at Cairo, saying that his words could not erase the “hatred” of the U.S.

Today’s situation for Obama is not the same as those that previous presidents have dealt with. Reagan experienced countries feuding over communism and democracy, not necessarily terrorist attacks made upon America itself. He now has the importance of gaining trust from other countries in order to stop terrorism and help bring peace into the Middle East.


This needed trust is similar to that American soldiers are trying to gain while helping bring peace in countries such as Iraq. Some Iraqi citizens have trust in the U.S. and believe that the soldiers have helped them but others view the former Iraq war and continuous battles today, as unnecessary or as though it’s causing more damage than what was already being done during Saddam Hussein’s rule.


The war has already taken place, so that cannot be undone. Obama has no choice but to move on from now and what has happened in the past and find a way to regain trust, spread peace and stop the hatred that many Muslims feel toward the United States. That task could become a very tough and lengthy issue for the president.


Guardian News, a newspaper based out of the U.K., had a headline that read “Barack Obama in Cairo: The speech that no other president could make.” The article mentioned that Obama “showed understanding, if not always acceptance, of what one might call the Arab and Muslim narrative.” Not all former presidents had the personal knowledge about whatever issue they faced, as Obama does about the Muslim community.


During the presidential campaign, Obama’s affiliation with Muslims was often mentioned by opposing parties trying to cause Americans distrust Obama and not vote for him. Those same affiliations may be what help bring Americans and Muslims to peace, if he can continue to show interest in the Muslim community.


In a way, Obama seems to have the same perspective on speeches as Reagan. As stated earlier, Reagan read the full content of his speech at the Berlin Wall because he thought it was needed. Now, Obama’s speech at Cairo University is being referred to as “truth-telling,” instead of trying to sugar-coat problems that the world is facing.


One of the reasons Obama is going to have a rough time gaining back the Muslim trust most likely has a direct connection to George W. Bush’s response after 9/11. In his speech the day after 9/11 occurred, Bush said the United States respected the Muslim faith and the people of Afghanistan. The Muslims might still have trust in the United States, if American solders had not bombed Middle East countries, killing some innocent Middle East citizens. Hostility was obviously going to rise, along with the tension as soon as Bush made that decision.


After Reagan’s speech, there were the usual positive and negative responses that presidents usually receive after speeches, but within the next two years, the Berlin Wall had fallen and changes were in full swing. Changes do not always occur that quickly after presidents announce their plans for the future. 

For example, it took years after 9/11 for changes to start being made. Even now, going on eight years later, soldiers are still in the Middle East. That was not the case with Bush’s comments and promises that he made to Americans, Muslims and other nations during his presidency in regards to the war on terrorism.


The Middle East is reluctant to trust in Obama’s promises because the tension stayed high between the Middle East and America throughout the entire ending of Bush’s presidency and everything he promised to do, was not always followed through with. Obama now faces the challenge of picking up where Bush left off and holding his word to the Muslim community.


It seems as though the Muslims may find faith in Obama since they do not have the same past with him, as they do with Bush. No matter what reactions Obama has received from his speech at Cairo University, no one can say what the future holds for the United States and its foreign relations with Muslims. Chances are, he has a better chance at forming a trusting relationship and peace with the Middle East than Bush, just because of his Muslim background.


The tactics used in the Cold War and goals that Reagan made to bring peace to other countries during his presidency are similar to those that Obama looks to be following. Only the future can show whether or not the invisible barrier and tension between the United States and the Middle East will fall just like the Berlin Wall.