The UN-GA Debate: Day One
The fact that the leaders of almost every nation on Earth meet each September for an intensive general “debate” sounds like a great thing, at least in theory. Maybe the opening session of the 61st United Nations General Assembly can work some tough problems out? It’s less encouraging to realize that the “debate” consists of no more than a series of self-contained speeches, with no rebuttal or cross-examination.
It’s even less encouraging to learn that participating world leaders have a tradition of only sitting to listen to those speeches that they expect to agree with. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not there in the morning of the first day to listen to George W. Bush, and George W. Bush was not there in the evening of the first day to listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So much for debate. Let’s see what our philosopher kings had to say on the first day.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened with a stern but hopeful opening statement. Annan’s ten year term as the UN lead ends this December, so this is the Ghanaian diplomat’s last General Assembly. Annan can’t possibly feel satisfied with the state of the world in 2006, and while his long hard work has not yielded peaceful results, it’s fair to say that this is through no lack of trying.
I’ve read through most of the speeches, most of them moderate and reasonable in tone. Luiz da Silva of Brazil, King Hussein of Jordan, Jacques Chirac of France and General Musharraf of Pakistan seemed intent on addressing and solving problems. Not one of these leaders has clean hands, yet one can almost be lulled into a sense of hope by reading their pleas for compromise and mutual dialogue.
But their speeches were overshadowed by the shrill voices of two world leaders who don’t like compromise and don’t favor dialogue, both of whom used the UN General Assembly to present their stark, militaristic views of the world’s problems. It is fascinating to read the words of George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next to each other and ponder how much these “enemies” have in common. They are both slick politicians whose reputations thrive in times of global hostility, and they are clearly both motivated to keep the stakes high. George Bush uses the word “extremist” or “extremism” 16 times, neatly ignoring the fact that many smart people around the world (and in the USA) consider George Bush a dangerous extremist. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretends to care deeply about the suffering Palestinian people, ignoring the fact that the Palestinian people have already been used as a political symbol by ambitious Muslim leaders who have no intention of actually helping them for the past 60 years.
The world is more than tired of war-mongers like Bush and Ahmadinejad, and I’d love a chance to challenge either of their pretensions to political wisdom in a real debate.
The 61st Session continues today with presentations from Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Bachelet Jeria of Chile, Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela, Romano Prodi of Italy, Esteban Lazo Hernandez of Cuba, Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Alfred Moisiu of Albania, Joseph Kabila Kabange of the Congo, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of Malaysia, Adnan Terzic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ivo Sanader of Croatia, Sheikh Mohammad Al-Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah of Kuwait and Tzipi Livni of Israel. Should be an interesting session.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
1. Why don’t you post your debate responses to Bush and Ahmadinejad? That would be interesting; perhaps enlightening.
2. Has anyone done more to help the Palestinian people than Saddham Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? And isn’t that the real problem - i.e., the people we love to hate are the only ones who provided any real assisstance to the people who live in one of the central troublespots vis a vis Al Queida terrorism.
3. I have problems with what I see as social injustices in Brazil, and radical Islamic base camps in Pakistan; but in what way don’t Chirac and Hussein have clean hands?
4. Please explain this - in 50 years of UN, why hasn’t the US made strong friendships and firm alliances with the 220 or so member nations? We seem more able to make enemies - like, we’ll take the UK, Taiwan, and Israel, and the rest of you can all go to hell. Where’s the sense in that? Is it our colonialist world bank that has made us hated by Latin America? Is it our total disregard for Africa that has made us less of an influence there than Osama? (Personally, I think the stupid Chavinistic Republicans are to blame - along with the stupid American voters.)
September 21st, 2006 at 6:38 am
Hi Stokely –
1. This new blog is a big experiment for me (I have hardly ever written about politics before). Long term, my goal is to do exactly what you said — I hope the entire site will stand as a refutation of the kind of illusory solutions offered by the Bushes and Ahmadinejads of the world. But as a writer I am highly conscious of the words I use and I feel I need to be patient and “find my voice” before I reach cruising speed. I’m working on it.
2. No, I don’t believe that Hussein or Ahmadinejad have helped the Palestinian people. I believe the tragic Palestinian-Israeli conflict is frequently used by weak or corrupt politicians to rally popular support against a “mythical” enemy. This isn’t fair to either the Palestinian or Israeli people, both of whom have been suffering through this “holy war” for decades.
3. I don’t have a big problem with Chirac, but I was rather thinking of the nation he represents. France was Britian’s partner in colonizing the Middle East in the years before and after World War I. The history of France and its former colonies is intertwined with the current fates of Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Rwanda, Vietnam. I generally approve of the international role France is playing in current debate — historically, though, they have a lot to answer for. I don’t have any specific evidence against King Hussein of Jordan, but I think “unclean hands” will easily apply to anybody who has ruled a Middle Eastern country in recent decades.
4. I wish I could explain this, and a lot of other things too.