President Bush addresses the United Nations
This morning I had the opportunity to hear Bush speak the UN as is customary every year for the president. As begrudgingly as I admit this, I felt the speech was quite good and well delivered.
Unfortunately, I was only able to hear the first half hour or so because I had to go to my job interview. You can read the speech in its entirety here.
Bush spoke a lot of the War on Terror and our role in Iraq. He made some excellent points, which, if I truly believed that he himself believed, I would support him and the war. But I think he has ulterior motives and because of that cannot, in good conscience, support the decisions he makes to fight in Iraq. He talked about how we, as human beings, as citizens of the world, are responsible for ensuring the preservation of freedom and recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings.
The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.
I could not agree more with this part of his speech. It is up to the world, as a whole, to realize when there is injustice occuring and to not turn its head because it's easier. The excuse that we can't go around telling countries and their leaders how to run things is a cop out and a poor excuse. There are certain basic principles by which everyone is entitled to live, and these principles are not to be violated by anyone, not even by someone with a lot of big guns who happened to have enough power to take over a country. And it is cowardly of us, and the rest of the world, if we allow people's basic freedoms to be run over because we don't want to interfere. I'm not saying necessarily that the best way to go about doing things is to try to instate democracy around the world. How a system of government chooses to run itself is irrelevant. What the issue here is whether or not that government recognizes the value of its people.
In the nation of Iraq, the United Nations is carrying out vital and effective work every day. By the end of 2004, more than 90 percent of Iraqi children under age five will have been immunized against preventable diseases such as polio, tuberculosis and measles, thanks to the hard work and high ideals of UNICEF. Iraq's food distribution system is operational, delivering nearly a half-million tons of food per month, thanks to the skill and expertise of the World Food Program.
Though I disagree with our going to war against Iraq, I cannot deny or over-look the fact that every time the United States goes to war with a country, at the end we help re-build it, and better than it was before. (Look at Germany after WWII.) That's not to say that we're the ones to judge what is "better," but it is indeed an improvement when children can be protected and food and other necessities can be provided where they were previously unavailable. At the same time, though, I recognize our own selfish motivations for what we are doing. If we are going to attempt to put a halt to unjust treatment of people around the world, we cannot be discriminating against those countries who have assets which we desire and those who do not. If we are to preach (as Bush did) that oppression is not something to be tolerated under any circumstances, then we must show that that is what we truly mean. No oppression. And what of the horrible things going on in Sudan? Have we sent troops and doctors and food and teachers and engineers (and my daddy) to Sudan to help? No. We have not. Because Sudan does not have anything that which we (the United States) desire. Bush did address the issue of Sudan, though. He called "on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur," but what I want to know is why we have not been more aggressive or insistent upon the betterment of situations in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa? Could it possibly be because (now this is a real wild guess here, people) there's no oil in Sudan? Because there's pretty much nothing in Sudan except disease and some sand? But are the Sudanese not people too? Do they not have dignity that needs preservation as well? Then why is it that we are not so ferocious or advantageous of peace and the solving of numerous problems in Sudan, who possibly needs it more than Iraq?
For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.
Again, if ending oppression was really his motivation for starting the war in Iraq, then I think I could find a way to support it. But how can it be over-looked or denied that this war was started as a mislead and misdirected counter-strike on a country that had none of the weapons of mass destruction which we have so vigorously claimed they had? I find the shift in reasoning for our presence in Iraq (going from, "They hit the WTC! It was them!" to, "We have to stop oppression because it is our humanitarian duty.") deceptive and disconcerting.
Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations.
I resent hearing him speak of money to the UN when the United States owes the UN approximately $1.6 billion in dues. That's "billion" with a B. If any other country had such an outstanding debt, it would lose its vote in the UN.
I could go on, but I think I've covered the main points that caught my attention.
I think it's important to informed and aware (even though I am not always successfully so). If you didn't catch the actual speech, please take the time to read it or someone's professional account/opinion of it. The United Nations affects everyone and is a vital world organization.
Unfortunately, I was only able to hear the first half hour or so because I had to go to my job interview. You can read the speech in its entirety here.
Bush spoke a lot of the War on Terror and our role in Iraq. He made some excellent points, which, if I truly believed that he himself believed, I would support him and the war. But I think he has ulterior motives and because of that cannot, in good conscience, support the decisions he makes to fight in Iraq. He talked about how we, as human beings, as citizens of the world, are responsible for ensuring the preservation of freedom and recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings.
The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.
I could not agree more with this part of his speech. It is up to the world, as a whole, to realize when there is injustice occuring and to not turn its head because it's easier. The excuse that we can't go around telling countries and their leaders how to run things is a cop out and a poor excuse. There are certain basic principles by which everyone is entitled to live, and these principles are not to be violated by anyone, not even by someone with a lot of big guns who happened to have enough power to take over a country. And it is cowardly of us, and the rest of the world, if we allow people's basic freedoms to be run over because we don't want to interfere. I'm not saying necessarily that the best way to go about doing things is to try to instate democracy around the world. How a system of government chooses to run itself is irrelevant. What the issue here is whether or not that government recognizes the value of its people.
In the nation of Iraq, the United Nations is carrying out vital and effective work every day. By the end of 2004, more than 90 percent of Iraqi children under age five will have been immunized against preventable diseases such as polio, tuberculosis and measles, thanks to the hard work and high ideals of UNICEF. Iraq's food distribution system is operational, delivering nearly a half-million tons of food per month, thanks to the skill and expertise of the World Food Program.
Though I disagree with our going to war against Iraq, I cannot deny or over-look the fact that every time the United States goes to war with a country, at the end we help re-build it, and better than it was before. (Look at Germany after WWII.) That's not to say that we're the ones to judge what is "better," but it is indeed an improvement when children can be protected and food and other necessities can be provided where they were previously unavailable. At the same time, though, I recognize our own selfish motivations for what we are doing. If we are going to attempt to put a halt to unjust treatment of people around the world, we cannot be discriminating against those countries who have assets which we desire and those who do not. If we are to preach (as Bush did) that oppression is not something to be tolerated under any circumstances, then we must show that that is what we truly mean. No oppression. And what of the horrible things going on in Sudan? Have we sent troops and doctors and food and teachers and engineers (and my daddy) to Sudan to help? No. We have not. Because Sudan does not have anything that which we (the United States) desire. Bush did address the issue of Sudan, though. He called "on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur," but what I want to know is why we have not been more aggressive or insistent upon the betterment of situations in Sudan and elsewhere in Africa? Could it possibly be because (now this is a real wild guess here, people) there's no oil in Sudan? Because there's pretty much nothing in Sudan except disease and some sand? But are the Sudanese not people too? Do they not have dignity that needs preservation as well? Then why is it that we are not so ferocious or advantageous of peace and the solving of numerous problems in Sudan, who possibly needs it more than Iraq?
For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.
Again, if ending oppression was really his motivation for starting the war in Iraq, then I think I could find a way to support it. But how can it be over-looked or denied that this war was started as a mislead and misdirected counter-strike on a country that had none of the weapons of mass destruction which we have so vigorously claimed they had? I find the shift in reasoning for our presence in Iraq (going from, "They hit the WTC! It was them!" to, "We have to stop oppression because it is our humanitarian duty.") deceptive and disconcerting.
Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations.
I resent hearing him speak of money to the UN when the United States owes the UN approximately $1.6 billion in dues. That's "billion" with a B. If any other country had such an outstanding debt, it would lose its vote in the UN.
I could go on, but I think I've covered the main points that caught my attention.
I think it's important to informed and aware (even though I am not always successfully so). If you didn't catch the actual speech, please take the time to read it or someone's professional account/opinion of it. The United Nations affects everyone and is a vital world organization.