President Obama’s speech to the United Nations on September 21st struck at many targets in his tour d’ horizon but it was neither inspiring nor bold. He did indicate that the Iranian government has been unable to “demonstrate that its [nuclear] program is peaceful.” And he went on to note that peace is meaningful only when it is lasting.
However, most of the speech was rhetorically engineered, a kind of pabulum for U.N. delegates. The president made special mention that the American military operation in Iraq will soon be over, but he did not point out the precarious nature of the “peace.” In the same vain, he noted “the tide of war is receding.” However, the incremental withdrawal of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t translate into a reduction in warfare. On the contrary, U.S. withdrawal only makes it easier for the Talban to gain control. Is this what the president means by a peaceful solution?
President Obama also contends that he saw in Egyptian protest the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa…” This might be regarded as colorful phraselogy, but in what sense is it accurate when many of the same protestors attacked and destroyed the Israeli embassy in Cairo?
Arguably the most revealing paragraph was the argument “the international community stood together for the sake of peace and security” in Libya. Here is an example of historical revisionism designed to bolster the president’s predilection for multilateralism. In fact, the U.S. flew sorties for two weeks in Libya and then passed the fighting baton to NATO. NATO forces soon ran out of ordnance and had to request assistance from the United States. A tin-horn dictator with a third world military force was able to hold off the U.S. and NATO for months. This is hardly a matter on which to brag.
In a discussion of the roiling North African and Mideastern political scene the president said “the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy.” Alas, what about those nations that want to transition to democracy? What did President Obama have to say about the demonstration in Iran after the last contested election?
Last, President Obama reasserted this belief that the Palestinians deserved a state of their own. But why? If the Palestinians will not denounce violence; if they refuse to disarm and if they will not recognize the state of Israel, why do they deserve a state? If, as the president notes, peace is not merely the absence of war, but “creating the opportunity that makes life worth living, “then Palestinians should embrace that opportunity by renouncing conflict with Israel and embracing economic opportunity Israel can provide.
President Obama quoting President Harry Truman, said, “The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspiration.” How quaint that quotation seems. More than two million Sudanese have been killed as the U.N. engages in hopeless debate. U.N. forces are found guilty of raping Congolese women. Slavery continues unabated in many African nations. Need I go on. Hypocrisy they name is the United Nations and President Obama is merely a feeble spokesman for this flawed institution.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.