The UN Address

President Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly continues to provide us with insight as to his view of the world and America’s position in that world. Unfortunately, this view of the world does not appreciate the greatness of the United States or its proper place in the history of mankind.

Mr. Obama said that “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.” If you take the President at his world, this means that America and the values of her people are no better than such nations as Saudi Ruled Arabia (which subjugates women to the point where they cannot drive or be out in public unaccompanied by a male member of their family) or Somalia (where gangs controlled by warlords rule the population with fear and summary executions).

This is not the first time that President Obama fails to understand the concept of American Exceptionalism. During his first trip to Europe, when asked if he believed in American Exceptionalism, Mr. Obama said he did, just like an Englishman believed in the exceptionalism of the United Kingdom. What a far cry from President Reagan’s belief of American as the last, best hope of mankind on earth.

The President then continued by saying that “The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of the long-gone Cold War.” Of course, the United Nations is an odd venue to make this statement considering that it, in and of itself, has deep roots in the Cold War. Also, I’m sure that our European allies were thrilled to hear that NATO, as an alignment of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War, makes no sense. I wonder how that statement played in Taipei, considering our treaty obligations to the Republic of China are an alignment of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War. Maybe we should rethink our alliances with South Korea and Japan – both of which are alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War.

Evidently, Mr. Obama fails to realize that our alliances during the Cold War were not simply for convenience. Rather, they were, for the most part, alliances of free nations made to oppose an ideology who’s basic premise was worldwide revolution in order to enslave people for the benefit of the state.

President Obama also made the statement that “…the interests of nations and people are shared.” This may or may not be true. Clearly, the mullahs running Iran believe that possessing nuclear weapons is in their interests. However, the Israelis do not believe, and rightfully so, that having nuclear armed mullahs is in their interests. Also, Poland and the Czech Republic believed that a ballistic missile shield was in their best interest. The Russians felt differently so the Obama Administration appeased the Russians and cancelled the missile shield. How exactly do you reconcile the fact that the interests of these four nations are shared?

Evidently, the President of the United States does not understand the first rule of international relations – sovereign nations act in their own self interests. Every American should find it troubling that the person constitutionally in charge of our foreign policy is so naive as not to understand this basic principal.

Meanwhile, as President Obama continues his worldwide apology tour, the Iranians continue to work on their nuclear bomb. At the same time that the President talks about reaching out to the “moderate” Taliban, he won’t commit more troops to Afghanistan so that we can win that war. Mr. Obama pulls the rug out from under our NATO allies on missile defense while the Russians oppose sanctions against Iran. For all of his talk about a new way of dealing with other nations, President Obama has nothing to show for it. Remember, he couldn’t even get our closest ally, the United Kingdom, to keep the murderer of over 300 Americans incarcerated. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will realize that talk is cheap, before it’s too late.


Anonymous said...

So when is the IAEA inspecting Dimona?

Steven L. Baerson said...

The day after Israel no longer (i) has free and fair elections, (ii) has civilian control of the military, and (iii) observes the rule of law.

Anonymous said...

1. I do not understand what you mean. Do you mean that Israel will consent to IAEA inspections when the conditions that you list do not hold? Or do you mean that the international community has no need to be concerned about Israel's nuclear weapons as long as those conditions hold?

2. Many countries that do satisfy your conditions also cooperate with IAEA safeguards and inspections.

3. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not generally considered to be consistent with the rule of law.