The UN Circus
What is going on at the Annual General Meeting of the UN has its pros and cons. Certainly there are some serious attempts to deal with the issues that are currently (and chronically) on the front burner. Of course, most leaders emphasize the Israel-Palestine conflict, while blaming Israel for "the occupation" as Kofi Annan did in his speech, and for the "invasion of Lebanon" as many other speakers did (forgetting that Hizbollah actually started it, but that's an inconvenient detail). Apart from this perennial topic, the most mentioned issues were the Iranian nuclear threat, and the chaos in Darfur.
Most Western nations agree that the Sudanese Government is not being cooperative in refusing to accept UN forces, and the lack of aid getting in and the continued fighting is likely to push the death toll so far to 200,000, with 2-3 million people in danger of starvation. But, as usual, the Arab/Muslim nations draw together in a defensive stance every time any one of them is criticized. Although it is required that the host nation request any peacekeeping force, as Lebanon did, there is an attempt at the UN to force a peace-keeping presence on Sudan. But, this could be a dangerous precedent, because then a majority could turn around and say that Israel must be forced to take a UN peace-keeping force on its territory. So it is not necessarily a good precedent.
Pres. Bush gave a fair analysis of the situation, and put his finger on the main culprits, Islamic radicals and Iran (without mentioning it). He was careful to draw the distinction between Islam and the terrorists. Pres. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who is making a strong bid to become the leader of the "nonaligned world" in the absence of Pres.Fidel Castro of Cuba, made a disgusting speech, in which he very deliberately insulted Pres. Bush. This was a new low for a so-called leader of a country. The so-called non-aligned movement in the absence of the Soviet Union has turned into a one-sided anti-American, anti-Israel movement.
Even Pres. Amhedinejad's speech was tame in comparison to that of Chavez. But, he made the usual points, that Iran only wants nuclear capability for peaceful purposes (yeah, I trust him) and that the US and its allies control the UN (that's a laugh given the actual control of the 81 Muslim and allied nations).
Israeli FM, Tzipi Livni, called the US granting of a visa to Amhedinejad, given his stated intention of wiping Israel, a UN member, off the map, a "scandal." Livni seemed to do very well, and her meeting with PA Pres. Abbas was well received. As long as the PA Unity Govt. accepts the three conditions of the international community, recognition of Israel's right to exist, no terrorism, and accepting past agreements of the PA, then Israel can deal with it. But, let's be honest, the likelihood of Hamas accepting these conditions is nil. Pres. Bush also met with Abbas and called him "a man of peace." Yes, but he doesn't currently control the situation in the PA, as witness the current unrest and killings in Gaza.
Another leader who was taken by surprise by events at home was Thailand's PM Thaksin Shinowatra. He was deposed by a military coup and suddenly was without a government. He bowed out of the GA and started his journey home to whatever awaits him.
I am in favor of a proposal that appeared in the J'sam Post recently for the formation of an international organization of democratic nations. This is not intended to replace the UN, but rather to form a growing group of countries that would or could vote as a bloc for democratic interests. This might persuade some countries that have been "third world" or "nonaligned," such as India, to consider its true interests (it is certainly threatened by Islamic terrorists). It is about time the democratic nations asserted themselves to stop such nonsense as 2/3 of the Gen Assembly resolutions being anti-Israel, and countries such as Syria being on the UN Commission of Human Rights.
Kofi Annan's speech was his last to the annual convention and there is already jockeying for his position. An Indian is being considered. I favor Tony Blair, he would make a great UN Secty. Gen. and would reassert its original aims, that have been lost in the miasma of extremism and futility. Perhaps the UN's time has passed, but I can dream can't I.
Most Western nations agree that the Sudanese Government is not being cooperative in refusing to accept UN forces, and the lack of aid getting in and the continued fighting is likely to push the death toll so far to 200,000, with 2-3 million people in danger of starvation. But, as usual, the Arab/Muslim nations draw together in a defensive stance every time any one of them is criticized. Although it is required that the host nation request any peacekeeping force, as Lebanon did, there is an attempt at the UN to force a peace-keeping presence on Sudan. But, this could be a dangerous precedent, because then a majority could turn around and say that Israel must be forced to take a UN peace-keeping force on its territory. So it is not necessarily a good precedent.
Pres. Bush gave a fair analysis of the situation, and put his finger on the main culprits, Islamic radicals and Iran (without mentioning it). He was careful to draw the distinction between Islam and the terrorists. Pres. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who is making a strong bid to become the leader of the "nonaligned world" in the absence of Pres.Fidel Castro of Cuba, made a disgusting speech, in which he very deliberately insulted Pres. Bush. This was a new low for a so-called leader of a country. The so-called non-aligned movement in the absence of the Soviet Union has turned into a one-sided anti-American, anti-Israel movement.
Even Pres. Amhedinejad's speech was tame in comparison to that of Chavez. But, he made the usual points, that Iran only wants nuclear capability for peaceful purposes (yeah, I trust him) and that the US and its allies control the UN (that's a laugh given the actual control of the 81 Muslim and allied nations).
Israeli FM, Tzipi Livni, called the US granting of a visa to Amhedinejad, given his stated intention of wiping Israel, a UN member, off the map, a "scandal." Livni seemed to do very well, and her meeting with PA Pres. Abbas was well received. As long as the PA Unity Govt. accepts the three conditions of the international community, recognition of Israel's right to exist, no terrorism, and accepting past agreements of the PA, then Israel can deal with it. But, let's be honest, the likelihood of Hamas accepting these conditions is nil. Pres. Bush also met with Abbas and called him "a man of peace." Yes, but he doesn't currently control the situation in the PA, as witness the current unrest and killings in Gaza.
Another leader who was taken by surprise by events at home was Thailand's PM Thaksin Shinowatra. He was deposed by a military coup and suddenly was without a government. He bowed out of the GA and started his journey home to whatever awaits him.
I am in favor of a proposal that appeared in the J'sam Post recently for the formation of an international organization of democratic nations. This is not intended to replace the UN, but rather to form a growing group of countries that would or could vote as a bloc for democratic interests. This might persuade some countries that have been "third world" or "nonaligned," such as India, to consider its true interests (it is certainly threatened by Islamic terrorists). It is about time the democratic nations asserted themselves to stop such nonsense as 2/3 of the Gen Assembly resolutions being anti-Israel, and countries such as Syria being on the UN Commission of Human Rights.
Kofi Annan's speech was his last to the annual convention and there is already jockeying for his position. An Indian is being considered. I favor Tony Blair, he would make a great UN Secty. Gen. and would reassert its original aims, that have been lost in the miasma of extremism and futility. Perhaps the UN's time has passed, but I can dream can't I.
posted by Jack Cohen at 6:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home