Remarks by President Obama at a New Start Treaty Signing Ceremony and Press Conference

As it has been stated in chapter 3.1, this Obama's speech is extraordinary in that although it deals especially with America-Russian relationships, it was delivered on the so-called neutral territory, in Prague, in the Czech Republic. This might cause an impression that the speech seems to be a bit more formal than if it had been delivered on territory of one of these two concerned countries. On the other hand, the ceremony of signing a New Start Treaty was a formal occasion on its own as possible hardships had been negotiated in private long before the final signature was made publically and therefore the whole ceremony act was just a formal public demonstration of consensus that had been reached to. It is necessary to add here that the act was consisted not only of Barack Obama speech but also the speech of Dmitrij Medvedev, or, to say it more accurately, both politicians were taking turns. The analysis, however, deals just with president Obama`s words. Furthermore, also this transcript notes down all kind of reactions that come from the audience, however, unlike the case of domestic State of the Union speeches, these reactions seem to be more natural and not pretended, though they are not so frequent.

As a greeting Obama chose simple " Good morning". Then he followed with the necessary formalities, for instance, to thank their Czechs hosts or to highlight the beauties of the Czech Republic, Prague and Prague castle. The most interesting thing in this part of the speech is that Obama says that the USA and the Czech Republic are old friends and that it is not his first visit to the Czech Republic – this creates ethos – he shows involvement with and in-group belonging with the audience.

Afterwards, Obama thanked also to president Medvedev to his will to come to an agreement to mutual treaty. As all debates dealing with the topic were finished and al conditions pre-negotiated, also this part of the speech may be marked only as a rhetorical device which purpose is to show that mutual relationship between these two countries are without any mutual disagreement. Of course, this is not fully true but the purpose is to present it as such.

The speech as a whole tries to highlight the importance of the treaty that was signed up on that day and to persuade others that it was only possible and right thing for the future as both nations will continue in their effort to reduce their arsenal. Obama used sometimes rhetorical clichйs as: " When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp." In order to persuade others, Obama, moreover, cited the words of Arcady Brish, who helped build Soviet Union's atom bombs, that Brish delivered at the age of 92 years after seeing the horrors of world war II and cold war: " we hope humanity will reach the moment when there is no need for nuclear weapons, when there is peace and calm in the world."

The goal to get rid of the superfluous arsenal is among those ones that would be probably accepted by the majority of the world's population. However, the situation was not so clear because both sides that had signed this treaty keep some reserve. Obama explained this as such: " And as I've repeatedly said, I'm sure Dmitrij feels it the same way with respect to his country, we are going to preserve our nuclear deterrent so long as other countries have nuclear weapons, and we are going to make sure that that stockpile is safe and secure and effective." When compared with these words, the preceding ones seem to be just a bit turgid. On the other hand, it may be evaluated that although the use of some clichйs both politicians try to explain their standpoints by logical argumentation.

Finally, a small space for journalist's questions was left. It is possible to compare the expressions which Obama had prepared before the speech with these words which were the reactions on actual questions. It must be acknowledged that even these questions were logically answered; on the other hand, it seems that they were more or less not such persuasive as the language which he used resemble the ordinary language in the responses that were answered immediately.