by Xinhua writer Chen Gongzheng

    CAIRO, June 5 (Xinhua) -- On March 28, 1910, the then retired U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt delivered a lecture to the Egyptian students at Cairo University, in which he deplored the assassination of Egypt's premier Boutros, and forcibly reminded his audience that a community can not exercise the right of self-government until it has shown the power of self-restraint.

    Ninety-nine years later, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama said Thursday in the very venue that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

    There is huge difference between the words of the youngest U.S. president and the first African American one, both of whom are famous for their energy and speeches, but Obama is apparently better at persuading a wider spectrum of audience though ambiguous wording and political correctness, as he has shown in his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim word.

    In order to seek "a new beginning" of U.S.-Muslim relations, Obama praised Islam's historical contributions to the West, particularly to the United States, and concluded that "Islam is part of America," and he also mentioned the Holy Koran four times before his Muslim-dominated hearers in the auditorium, which drew predictable long-time ovations.

    Obama lauded Cairo at the beginning of his speech as a "timeless" city, while he did not notice it was also a people less one when he was here, the city's 16 million citizens were removed from the eyesight of the distinguished guest.

    The speech was once expected to be an apology to the Muslim word, but Obama, using the Holy Koran and some porous history knowledge to bridge his arguments, succeeded in transforming it into a cooperation overture by establishing common ground and common enemies.

    There is no doubt that the catchphrase "new beginning" will gain currency among world press at least for a short period, while encouraging prima facie, these rhetorics may be far less effective than intended.

    On Palestinians, he reiterated his country's commitment to the two-state solution as everyone expected, only after reaffirming the "unbreakable" ties between United States and Israel, whose leadership have turned their backs on the guideline. The widely accepted plan is hollow without mutual efforts and substantial pressure from Washington.

    Moreover, Obama was prudent while talking about the Israeli settlements. He said that the United States does not accept the legitimacy of "continued Israeli settlements" but said nothing about the existing ones.

    So it is of no surprise that both Israelis and Palestinians saw "positive signals" in Obama's speech and stressed some quotations that is in favor of respective side. The balance trick of Obama's speech is to spread his points into different parts to employ different parties' selective hearing, but that is hardly the case on negotiation tables where the law of interests applies.

    Obama did apologize on the controversial Iraq war, albeit in a euphonic way. He said it reminded his country of the need to use "diplomacy and build international consensus," while still insisting on the legitimacy of the war if U.S. troops leave the war-torn country on time and respect Iraq's sovereignty, however, the president blamed later the violence in Iraq on the "divisions between Sunni and Shiah."

    By and large, Obama's efforts to defuse the tension between United States and Muslims were successful. Minutes after the speech, a veteran Egyptian minister on the scene who has taken part in the Taba talks with Israel told Xinhua that "it is clear that Obama believes in the principles he is saying."

    He also hoped Obama can "turn his words into acts," a point which dominates Friday's Cairo press, but what actions are needed? Obama has urged all the parties in the speech to "act boldly in the years ahead," but how?

    "Change we need," Obama said in his campaign trail. After taking office, he said "change has come to the United States," but there are indeed different levels of the so-called "change".

    The change of the authority is common in history, as it is the change of attitude and words, while the change of actions are much harder. A case in point is Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, who promised an independent Palestinian state before stepping down but ate his words at last.

    Mr. Bush, who contributed the phrase "axis of evil" to modern English, refused to talk with Iran and launched the unpopular Iraq war to satiate the munitioners, which draw strong backlashes among its Arab allies.

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the host of Obama's speech, did not visit the United States during Bush's second term in protest of his rash move against Iraq.

    All in all, a speech to woo everybody and offend nobody risks promising too much, a touchstone for Obama in the coming weeks is the nearly unsolvable Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, it's easier to make a foray into the unknown than to change the status quo, which was shaped in the past 60 years. So far, Obama is smart enough to avoid a showdown or a direct visit to the area, which would exhaust his diplomatic capital and kill his second term.

    As time elapses, the whole world is watching Obama, who could not shun a real change in actions in the coming months.