UN SPEECHES: PRESIDENT MORSI September 28, 2012Posted by wmmbb in Israel-Palestine, Middle East, US Politics.
The United Nations is proving to be this season somewhat of a speaker’s forum.
Over recent days, the world has had the opportunity to listen to the Presidents of the United States – restating American values of freedom of speech, and Iran, as well as the “Enemy of the People”, Julian Assange, the Prime Minister of Australia, and the newly elected President of Egypt.
US President Obama was doing what he has been said to do well, delivering a set piece speech, before confronting the more difficult task of debating with his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. Personally, I cannot listen to Obama. Julie was being her parodic self, and Julian as declarative as ever.
So what did President Morsi have to say? It turns out the speech was substantive. He spoke of the Palestinian issue, the war in Syria, and the putative war against Iran, while calling for the implementation of the nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. ”The only solution is to get rid of nuclear weapons”. He also mentioned Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia – but not Libya. “We as Africans [will seek to raise the living standards.] ” “The international order should be repaired. . . the General Assembly and the Security Council must be reformed. . .”
His forty minute speech is provided in full by RT:
At War in Content, Paul Woodward comments on the speech:
Egypt’s newly elected president, Mohammed Morsi, gave an historic speech at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday.
The focus of Morsi’s speech was Palestine — yet you wouldn’t know it if you read the New York Times. The preoccupation of its reporter seemed to be the Egyptian leader’s omission of a stalwart defense of free speech. In other words, the New York Times, which prides itself as “the paper of record,” is acutely attuned to this constitutional and libertarian issue at the very same time that — more artfully than Izvestia ever did — it engages in self-censorship. At least in the Soviet Union everyone knew they were being lied to. The average reader of the Times on the other hand remains blissfully ignorant about the information that their trusted newspaper chooses not to report.
At Informed Comment, Juan Cole comments on the talking point of Paul Ryan designed for the segment of the voting public in the US:
Paul Ryan knows nothing about the world or foreign affairs. I presume he may have been abroad at some point somewhere. I don’t know. As is usual in American politics, however, cavernous ignorance is no bar to holding forth, if it is not in fact a qualification. After all, ignorance is compatible with untainted national chauvinism (he would say patriotism), whereas if you actually know something it is harder mindlessly to wave the flag.
Paul Ryan has been attacking President Obama’s foreign policy as weak and resembling that of Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis, and as ‘blowing up in our faces.’
But is it true that Obama’s foreign policy is ‘blowing up in our faces?’ And how could that have been prevented? Rembember, Ryan’s running mate, Mitt Romney, began calling for Hosni Mubarak to step down on Feb 1, 2011. . It is hard to see Romney
Is Ryan reversing that position and saying Obama should have clung to Mubarak? There are only two possibilities, Paul. If you support democratic elections, a majority will express itself democratically, and the Egyptian public might well veto US policies. If you want a puppet dictatorship, well, that might be easier said than done.
What chance has ignorance of establishing a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East or anywhere else?
Alexander Reed Kelly, Assange, Potential Enemy of the People, Speaks to UN (Truthdig).