Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

QuoteHome

BannerWingLeft Become a Member Today BannerWingRight

SideBarBase

What was Lacking in the President's U.N. Speech?

President Barak Obamas second address to the United Nations General Assembly almost sounded as if he were speaking to voters on the campaign trail in Iowa, instead of fawning diplomats in Manhattan. He mentioned his financial reform, his commitment to fighting global warming, his efforts to withdrawal from Afghanistan, and his new nuclear treaty with Russia. In classic Obama form he mentioned the words I, me, or my 34 times, including this line about his efforts to stop Irans nuclear weapons program: Now let me be clear once more: The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speech just hours later would show, President Obama is gonna be waiting a long time.

After kicking off with some brief remarks on the failure of the system of Capitalism, Ahmadinejad then turned to 9/11 which he said has affected the whole world for almost a decade. Ahmadinejad identified those responsible for the attack as some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view. At that point, to their credit, President Obamas U.N. delegation had the decency to walkout. But the Obama administration then turned right around and affirmed their engagement Strategy: We didnt offer engagement with Iran because we agree with what Ahmadinejad says, said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. We have offered engagement with Iran because we think its in our national security interest.

But now even some former Obama administration officials are beginning to doubt their faith in Obamas foreign policy vision. This past Sunday, former Obama State Department Official Ray Takeyh wrote in The Washington Post: The essence of Washingtons approach is that confronted with a choice of debilitating isolation or rejoining the community of nations, Iran will eventually make the right decision. The Islamic Republic, however, is too wedded to its ideological verities and too subsumed by its rivalries to engage in such judicious determinations.

But the failure of President Obamas nuclear disarmament strategy is not limited to Tehran. Heritage Foundation analyst Theodore Bromund explains:

The underlying assumption of the Presidents statement is that the General Assembly in particular, and the United Nations in general, plays a central role in arms control and disarmament. This is not true. The Security Council has an important, but qualified and limited, role to play in pursuit of international peace and security.

The United Nations as a whole, as Heritage Foundation analyst Baker Spring points out, is profoundly handicapped by its assumption of moral equivalence between democracies and dictatorships, by its refusal to fully acknowledge the inherent right of self-defense, by its insistence on negotiating unverifiable and unenforceable treaties, and by its desire to supplant the authority of sovereign nation states with that of U.N. bureaucrats and unaccountable NGOs.

President Obamas devotion to international institutions like the United Nations is the core of the Obama Doctrine. But as Bromund alludes to above, the Presidents failure to acknowledge both the limitations and shortcomings of the U.N. allows other countries to abuse his goodwill for their own purposes. The U.N. finds no moral conflict in having human rights abusers sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council; in having socialist countries sit on the U.N.s Economic and Social Council; or having terrorism-sponsoring nations block the U.N. from defining an act of terrorism.

President Obama did throw one sentence towards making this institution more accountable, but no specific agenda was broached or referenced. Which is not surprising since Obama has failed to even nominate a U.S. Representative for Management and Reform to the United Nations. The President did call on other countries to bring specific commitments to promote transparency; to fight corruption. But if the U.S. administration isnt willing to fight for those reforms in the U.N., what are the odds that other governments will be willing to offer them up for their own countries? Were not holding our breath.

Other Questions