President Barack Obama took a breather from the health care debate and eased into his two most comfortable roles: dazzling the world with his charming speeches and fixing the United States’ weather-beaten reputation, all at his first United Nations General Assembly address.
The General Assembly held its 64th session in New York.
And as always, there were the weird, the irrelevant, the usual and the dignified speeches — provided by the Libyan, Iranian and Venezuelan presidents. All hail the drama kings.
Highlights included a 96-minute nonsensical speech by the Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, in which he described the H1N1 virus as a “military tool,” amidst other bar talk conspiracy theories.
Soon after, the lord supreme of ridiculous addresses, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stepped up to the podium and gave his normal “Holocaust denial” speech while delegates from other countries played their usual act — the walkout.
Next in line was Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. “Please, don’t anybody throw a shoe at me,” he jested, a humor attempt at the expense of former U.S. president George W. Bush.
Chavez went on to praise Obama, saying he had replaced the “smell of sulfur” on the world stage with the “smell of hope,” another low blow to Bush.
But the real showstopper was none other than the “world charmer” himself, President Barack Obama who proved again that the world is not ready to ditch its love affair with the demagogue of the decade.
Obama assured the assembly that the era of a unilateralist America was over.
He dangled a friendly challenge across the noses of world leaders, urging them to play a bigger role in global issues instead of relying on America.
“Make no mistake: This cannot be solely America’s endeavor,” he told a group of receptive world leaders.
“Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility.”
Obama tackled a wide array of issues in his speech, from nuclear proliferation to global economic prosperity.
He left no stone unturned.
He was humbly persuasive about the Israel-Palestine conflict and respectfully firm on nuclear negotiations.
Even dictatorial clowns love nice words.
Obama called for negotiations on nuclear proliferation, rather than bullish bombast, and warned that sanctions would be implemented if warranted, referencing Iran and North Korea.
Guess who agreed to nuclear inspection requests a few days after the speech? Iran.
Obama also decided to take a neutral role in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He asked all parties to pursue dialogue and reach a lasting deal.
As usual, after the speech we had the crucifixion from loyal critics.
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, was all frowns about the president’s speech.
In his words: “It was all extremely naive. The president did everything he could to say: ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”
Naïve speech?
What’s wrong with having a world leader who actually humbles himself in his speech to ensure world cooperation?
What injustice is it to have an American president who seeks to engage the world respectfully rather than arrogantly?
What harm is it, if he is actually liked by America’s adversaries?
Should we break our backs because, for the first time in a long while, America’s global image has gained some restitution from its long stay in the dumpster?
If this is what John Bolton means by “naïve,” then I shall forward a thousand supplications to God that Obama stays naïve.
Food For Thought: Humility is like a beautiful symphony — first it gets your enemies listening, soon their legs start tapping and in the blink of an eye they are right where you want them — dancing to your tune.
History Alum • Oct 6, 2009 at 10:18 am
Ravi,
You completely ignorant of history and much of my historical studies at Marquette focused on diplomacy and foreign policy. Germany killed tens of millions during WWII. The USSR and China imprisoned and killed millions of its own people. Japan started the war that America finished — millions would have been killed in an invasion of the Japan. The atomic bombs actually saved lives…it may be brutal math, but it is true. Millions were killed in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia after the US left.
Canada benefits from having the US as its neighbor and protector.
The Iranian government slaughters its own citizens in the streets when they question a rigged election. That government also pines to destroy another nation and is seeking the method in which to do it (If Iran doesn’t like some of the things that Israel is doing, then why doesn’t Iran seek a diplomatic rather than a nuclear solution?). The Iranian people demonstrated this summer that they are tired of the Iranian government and were violently surpressed. This is a government that persecutes its own citizens. If that regime is not evil then what is it? Meanwhile, Mr. Obama supported the regime rather than those seeking freedom.
I am a veteran of the Iraq War. One of the proudest moments of my life was facilitating security on 30 Jan 2005 so Iraqi men and women could vote in a meaningful election for the very first time in their lives. Many so-called “intellectuals” such as yourself dismiss those elections, but if you would have seen the look in the eyes of those people on that meaningful day you would think very differently.
Diplomacy can indeed be a very powerful tool, but it is the equivilent of playing three different, yet interconnected chess games at the same time. Talking for the sake of talking benefits nations like Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It creates the delays necessary for them to continue weapons development and to find fissures to exploit in the group of nations dealing with Iran.
You claim to be an intellectual, but I find your argument to be full of partisan holes. You cite slanted and outfight false history without context. You toss in a non-sequitar about Canada. You also slant your reviews of both President Bushes and leave out significant diplomatic and humanitarian accomplishments. You also put all your faith in diplomacy — thinking that diplomacy is an endstate, rather than a tool (like war) that can be used for both the positive and peaceful and the negative and belligerant.
President Obama has a very hard road in front of him, I hope for the sake of everybody that he can navigate a path that will bring true peace to all; however, I fear that he is incapable of rising to this challenge. I hope I am wrong.
Raviinder Gill • Oct 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Brian,
You are referring to Obama’s speech as bigotry? For the first time in the history of World politics we have a President who is very diplomatic and is keen to serenely negotiate with countries that have been very ignorantly acknowledged as axis of evil. What gives your father Bush to declare a country evil? I never knew the arena of world politics consisted of name calling. We really want to play holy now? Mind you no nation has as much bloodshed on their hands as America. The killing of millions of Native Americans, Vietnamese’s, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has only contradicted this nations statement on the currency in God we Trust to be very hypocritical. Our neighbor Canada has never faced any threats from terrorism? I will give you a moment and let that thought sink in, this maybe so because Canada has always been a very diplomatic nation that does not fuel war. Let me further lend a hand because every time there has been a leader such as Former President Bush and Bush senior the U.S. has not contributed to the World of Politics as a peaceful nation. I hope you realize Brian and I am very sorry if it is beyond your intellectual capacity that every conflict the U.S. has engaged in after World War II such as Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, and now Iraq has only led to the slaughter of innocent lives of women and children and young American Soldiers who desolately laid their lives based on the notion they were protecting the freedom of American Citizens. Since you seem to be a very conservative person I beg you in the name of God, Brian diplomacy will only shed light on this great nation.
Emil Ovbiagele • Sep 29, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Brain,
your choice of words, i must admit baffle me a little. How was his speech a bigotry stricken or equivocal?
I mean, the speech I heard no element of prejudice and was quick clear and consise. Please point out my faults if I am wrong. I mean with facts and quotes from the speech.
As regards the Isreal-Palestine conflict, I think he was quite tactful about it. And when trying to solve a global conflict as a third party, you would want to express progressive rationales rather than raw emotions. As just condeming one party suspends the due date for peace. And america should act as a peace maker and not pitch tents that fuel even more discords.
Note…I tend to be a centrist– so i condem the president when he eers and praise him when he deserves him. Being fair is a principle of life.. As to if Obama is a mess– only time will tell..
Brian Levy • Sep 29, 2009 at 8:33 am
I thought Obama’s speech was more of his bigotry and equivocating. He threw one of America’s closest allies, Israel, under the bus. Obama is a mess, and we’re lucky that we’ve got one of his four years behind us.