Thoughts on Bush's UN Speech?
First and foremost: ARRRRRR!
I was all set to make a triumphant return to Optimates posting today by live blogging Bush's address to the UN. So I started typing out notes as he began his speech, waiting for the first salient point. It never arrived. As near as I can tell, the entire speech was one, fifteen minute long platitude. He name checked each major state in the "greater middle east", said some warm fuzzy things about their rich cultural heritage before proclaiming that we "respected" them and that we supported their brave struggle against their bad governments.
Other than the predictable parsing of the current Lebanese crisis as entirely Hezbollah’s fault, and his brief (read: mentioned it and moved on) endorsement of the new UN proposal for solving it, his only words of substance we his naming of former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios as a presidential special "envoy" to Darfur. It would have been nice to hear some details on this one.
Anyway, if anyone else got more of substance out of this than I did, please let me know what I missed. Also, apologies for the long an unexcused absence. Oh and... Yarrrrr!
I was all set to make a triumphant return to Optimates posting today by live blogging Bush's address to the UN. So I started typing out notes as he began his speech, waiting for the first salient point. It never arrived. As near as I can tell, the entire speech was one, fifteen minute long platitude. He name checked each major state in the "greater middle east", said some warm fuzzy things about their rich cultural heritage before proclaiming that we "respected" them and that we supported their brave struggle against their bad governments.
Other than the predictable parsing of the current Lebanese crisis as entirely Hezbollah’s fault, and his brief (read: mentioned it and moved on) endorsement of the new UN proposal for solving it, his only words of substance we his naming of former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios as a presidential special "envoy" to Darfur. It would have been nice to hear some details on this one.
Anyway, if anyone else got more of substance out of this than I did, please let me know what I missed. Also, apologies for the long an unexcused absence. Oh and... Yarrrrr!
posted by Chris @ 7:22 PM
7 Comments:
You didn't miss anything. In fact, I wonder why you listened to it in the first place.
At the point, my feeling is that the Bush Administration is merely something to be endured until Jan. 20, 2009. Then - hopefully - we get a good president! I'll work toward that end, anyway.
Don't worry, my time was not entirely wasted. Somehow, even his gripping oratory was unable to keep me from using the duration of the speech to add all the missing cover art to my iTunes library.
Here is the text of the speech (link: latimes.com) for those of us who weren't able to see it.
Although the speech Bush gave in the GA was boilerplate stuff, I really don't blame him. Boilerplate is pretty much the standard for UN speeches. The UN is just a country club for countries to get together and work out back room deals.
I do have a problem with the following about a possible UN force to Darfur, however:
The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support.
The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act. Your lives and the credibility of the United Nations is at stake.
If Bush really wanted to point fingers, all twenty of his fingers and toes should be pointed straight at Beijing, not at Khartoum. Beijing is the veto power on the Sec. Council who's guaranteeing that the UN will never go into Darfur unless it does so on the terms of the genocidal government. If Bush really wanted to make an impression on this issue, he would have made it clear to the world that any vote by China to oppose a peacekeeping force is equivalent to a vote to continue the genocide. But of course, the UN is not the place to rock the boat like this unless you want to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq.
"But of course, the UN is not the place to rock the boat like this unless you want to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq."
Then could someone explain to me what Hugo Chavez was doing the other day?!? Or is it such that calling the President of the United States "Satan," "racist," and "imperialist," no longer classifies as controversial in world opinion? If so, why are we still in that startlingly ineffective world body?
Speaking of the Chavez speech, does anyone else find it odd that the two-part American response to Chavez was a) offense at him claiming that Bush is trying to run the world, and b) that if the U.N. ins't going to march lock-step with American policies, then we don't need it? Bush is imperialist. He is very arguably a racist. And if he had a shred of competence I might compare him to Satan as well. And he is truying to run the world, despirte an inability to run his own country effectively. The greater question is whether America is in a position of obligation to be the world's policemen, and how far that jurisdiction, if it exists, can apply. But as far as railing against Bush, well, Bush has it coming, and I only hope that more foreign leaders can give it to him as well (although hopefully in a more useful, diplomatic fashion.)
First of all, fuck you to blogger for eating my post and making me type this up again.
Tacitean:
"Or is it such that calling the President of the United States "Satan," "racist," and "imperialist," no longer classifies as controversial in world opinion?"
Sadly, yes. Calling the US very nasty names is not exactly a faux paux anymore in international diplomacy. Why this sad state of affairs came to be, we can discuss in another post.
"If so, why are we still in that startlingly ineffective world body?"
Because its startling ineffectiveness sometimes provides very useful political cover for the US. For example: Darfur. To this administration, Darfur is not a high national security priority. Therefore, it makes no practical sense for the US to expend blood and treasure there. There is, however, great moral sense, and indeed, some would say moral obligation, for the US to be involved. Fortunately, the same people who feel this way are the type of people who put great faith in the UN. So, we kick this issue in front of the Security Council, where we know China or Russia will block, or at least severely hamper, any actual, effective solution to the crisis which would most likely involve US engagement in a region, frankly, where we don't need or want to be in. Now, we come off as the good guys, lecturing and hectoring the Chinese about the deadlock, while enjoying the fact that as long as the Chinese play their part, the US will not need to commit anything beyond our moral outrage to the region. Wash hands, exit Pontius, stage left.
To be perfectly honest, it really doesn't pay to see the UN as an actual legislative body for the world. It only fulfills that role in a very limited capacity. The Security Council and the GA are more like the WWF (the wrestling, not the pandas) than US Congress. Countries go in front of those bodies to preen and perform political theater, not to actually get anything done. The bulk of the UN's actual work is done in little known committies like the International Maritime Organization, World Health Organization, UNESCO, etc. Nobody in the public really cares about what actually goes on in those bodies, so countries have more leeway to bargain and negotiate and arrive at a compromise. The UN is also just one big cocktail lounge where every country has an excuse to be there and network with every other country, and actually get things done by negotiating with each other. In the final analysis, it's a fairly ridiculous, but still nevertheless a fairly politically useful body.
Post a Comment
<< Home