Remarks by the President to Parliament in London

Though dedicated to the members of British Parliament, the speech was not only diplomatic but, quite surprisingly, with relatively high portion of humor, especially at the beginning when Obama aspired to gain the attention of his listeners. Of course, it is not possible to say that the speech would lose its official tone; nevertheless, such approach facilitates to make a better atmosphere. After the necessary direct greeting of all listeners in the hall, Obama then quite obviously for this kind of speeches referred to the old tradition of bilateral relationships among the United States and the United Kingdom. As he said: " Of course, all relationships have their ups and downs. Admittedly, ours got off on the wrong foot with a small scrape about tea and taxes". This hint invoked a bit of amusement and laughter in the hall. Also in this case, all reactions of the audiences were transcribed and seem to be not pretended as well.

The whole speech is, however, just a demonstration of values that both countries support and advocate. It is just logical that these values are common; the United States came into being on the grounds rooted in their former British colony. Both countries influence nowadays each other in the areas of human rights and the rights of individuals, liberty and democracy. The linkage is of course facilitated by the use of English as a common language. The differences in opinions appeared and caused various misunderstanding, however, Obama listed just those from the history and is rather not too concrete: " The path has never been perfect. But through the struggles of slaves and immigrants, women and ethnic minorities, and persecuted religions, we have learned better than most that the longing for freedom and human dignity is not English or American or Western - it is universal and it beats in every heart. Perhaps that's why there are few nations that stand firmer, speak louder and fight harder to defend democratic values around the world than the United States and the United Kingdom."

From earlier admission of some mutual misunderstandings Obama again returned the point to the values that unify these two countries. It is a bit pity that he was not more concrete and seemed to have a fear to express some of contemporary themes to which both countries differ in their opinions and apprehensions of situation.

The purpose of the speech was, indeed, not only to reaffirm that both countries create a long-standing coalition of loyal allies but, moreover, to persuade themselves and especially even other countries that their values and conception of international organization in the world should be followed even by countries who honor and advocate different system of values. In such cases, Obama rejected such different values and, speaking for the citizens of these countries, even promoted this suggestion: " What we saw, what we are seeing in Tehran, in Tunis, in Tahrir Square is a longing for the same freedom that we take for granted here at home. It was a rejection of the notion that people in certain parts of the world don't want to be free or need to have democracy imposed upon them. It was a rebuke to the worldview of al Qaeda, which smothers the rights of individuals, and would thereby subject them to perpetual poverty and violence". Surely, it is true that citizens of these countries might have such dreams as to be free, all states, including the USA and the UK, promote in terms of the international politics their own interests at the first place. It is evident that Obama's focus of human rights conception is less appealing for instance in case of China on which the United States is partially dependent.

The speech as a whole does not show something surprising, it is accompanied by clichйs such as:: " Let there be no doubt: The United States and United Kingdom stand squarely on the side of those who long to be free. And now, we must show that we will back up those words with deeds". Obama is admitting that the old alliance between the US and the UK should be slightly reshaped, however, he is not too concrete besides the fact he stressed the need for the support of the free market enterprise, i.e. again to promote one of the most basic cores of the United States.