September 26, 2007
The Big Three at the UN
Tuesday was the big day at the UN General Assembly. Global leaders rushed to the podium, one after the other. We had the heads of government of South Africa, Indonesia, Germany and many others. But it was clear who the big three were - Bush, Sarkozy and Ahmadinejad. Bush because of his job, Sarko because he is still a novelty - and ADJ because he says outrageous things and is at the centre of a gathering international crisis.
It was fascinating to sit through an entire Ahmadinejad speech and press conference for the first time. I thought he pulled off the difficult trick of being simultaneously boring and sinister. Boring because he goes on and on about religion. I don’t know why this surprised me - it is the Islamic Republic of Iran, after all. But the religious rhetoric is usually wisely edited out of the compressed version of his remarks. Having to listen to it all in full, is a bit like being trapped on the doorstep by a Jehovah’s Witness. On the other hand, I also found his performance sinister because it is clear that he is genuinely obsessed by Israel. These are not stray remarks, forced out of him. He can’t keep off the subject.
His hostility is palpable. He blanked an Israeli journalist who managed to ask him a question at the press conference - and just said, "next question". But on the vexed question of "wiping Israel off the map", it seemed to me that he came close to saying that he wasn’t talking about war. In response to a question, he suggested that Israel would disappear in the same way as the Soviet Union - the implication being that it would happen spontaneously and in a largely peaceful way. But that’s all it is - an implication. It would be helpful (to put it mildly) if he could bring himself to spell out that he is making a prediction, rather than a threat of a military strike.
Sarko maintained his current tough line on Iran. But - for the rest - his speech was a bit of a disappointment. In fact, I thought it was in the worst tradition of windy, high-falutin’ French rhetoric. Sample quote: The UN is "a dream of the human conscience against all who threaten to destroy humanity." It’s a shame - I thought he was better than that. Maybe a diplomat wrote the speech.
Bush’s performance was also a little odd. The speech was terse and well-delivered, apart from the usual problems pronouncing foreign names (Aung San Suu Kyi was a bit of a tonguetwister.) But he all but avoided the big international questions that clearly will dominate the rest of his term - Iraq, Iran and the Middle East peace process. Instead he talked a lot about development and malarial bed-nets. He has left it rather late to show the UN his softer side.
Just out of curiosity… who is shorter, Ahmadinejad or Sarkozy?
Through observation, I have developed this theory that particularly short men tend to be nasty. Not sure why, perhaps they had to because they had to stand up to bullies or maybe the resentment wells up in them because of the well-known fact that taller guys get all the girls.
I think Ahmadinejad’s lack of height explains his penchant for seeking attention. I also think Sarko will prove a major flop and think much of his racism and nastiness is due to his short stature.
(Flippant? I know!)
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 26th, 2007 at 9:30 am | Report this commentPacifist - Flippant and ignorant. You developed this theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_syndrome
Posted by: James | September 26th, 2007 at 10:18 am | Report this commentHi James,
I posted that wikipedia link a few days ago. I note that the august institution University of Central Lancashire has found against it.
As I said in my post, I think shorter men are nastier but that is just a personal observation. Obviously I have not met all short men or even a statistically representative sample of them. Sarkozy and Ahmadinejad are two casual (but well-known) examples that confirm my observation.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am | Report this commentI have a feeling ADJ believes he might be the Mahdi. Gideon thinks that “(s)ecurity threats truly Hitlerian in nature and scope are rare.” How rare?
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 26th, 2007 at 10:49 am | Report this commentHi Paco. I am willing to place a bet with you that Ahmadinejad will lose the nesxt presidential elections in Iran.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am | Report this commentAhmadinejad might be dead before the next elections in Iran by US air strike.
Posted by: Chen | September 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm | Report this commentThis blog seems to be a small club, and it seems time that I should see a psychotherapist to sort out why I’m adding a few mines to it.
Mr Rachman: While perhaps a bit condescending, your insights on these leaders give some small comfort. Do you think the calibre of men/women standing on that First Avenue podium is diminished markedly from a generation ago? Most would say not, with good reason, but I fear it is perhaps so. I liked your Jehovah’s Witnesses comment! They are so different than the discrete Christian Scientists who have so long wielded influence and direction over America’s foreign policy.
Posted by: WCM | September 27th, 2007 at 11:08 am | Report this comment“mines” = “lines” in the above. Not a typist or a proofreader. Sorry!
Posted by: WCM | September 27th, 2007 at 11:10 am | Report this commentDear WCM,
Ha ha. Indeed a small club, but with global ambitions
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Report this commentWe have in one side George W. Bush, under whose Government two nations have been invaded (Afghanistan and Iraq) something that didn´t happened since Adolf Hitler…and in the other side que have Ahmadinejad, whose Government has not invaded any nation of the World and is doing anything possible just to DEFEND itself from American murder threats.
Any person with a little of honor, with a little of respect, would support Iran against another brutal attack by the US.
All that American theatre about how bad is a poor nation like Iran which only tries to defend itself, which has been attacked and invaded by Saddam Hussein with American help, which is under an American embargo…is ridiculous.
I want to express my support to Iran as a Westerner, as a European. We have to stop America from invading the rest nations of the World murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents. We have to stop America from threatening the people of the rest of the World. We want to be free and don´t accept the American Dictatorship.
Posted by: enrique | September 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentenrique,
How ridiculous. It’s amazing how far blind hatred of America can warp a person’s grasp of reality. It’s really interesting, this vehement anti-Americanism. OK, so they have a shallow culture. But Europe would have been devoured ages ago by the Russian bear if it weren’t for the counterbalancing power of the New World - not to mention the fascist menace from within. Maybe thereby lies the explanation - a need to escape such humiliating indebtedness.
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm | Report this commentDear Enrique,
I salute your message of peace and understanding.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
Here’s a reading for you:
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9861424
Posted by: Paco Labani | September 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm | Report this commentMight may not always be right,
Posted by: Pacifist | September 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pm | Report this commentBut the mighty always like to pick a fight
And though they cloak it in Orwell-speak
The current “war against terrorism”
Is the empires’ war on the weak.
Thanks Paco. I’m off on a much needed holiday that’s why I thought I sign off with the above poem.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | September 28th, 2007 at 2:12 pm | Report this commentGideon, the Israeli journalist he ignored was Karnit Goldwasser, wife of Ehud whose capture by Hezbollah set off the whole tragedy in Lebanon last year. She went there to ask questions about his fate and she tried to bring her case to his and the media’s attention. Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev are still missing and so far Red Cross access to them has been denied. Ahmadinejad through his Quods force connections has all the clout anyone would need to help. His dismissive silence spoke louder than words. Family and friends of people serving in Iraq know as well as Karnit does that the Pasdaran junta is out and about killing our soldiers.
Your piece on Munich was very good, comparisons to Hitler and Munich always fail. L’histoire se repete only for those who don’t learn from it, so it all seems similar to them! Still, the parallel here is that appeasement will lead to a nuclear armed Iran and we don’t know who will hold the final say. Pasdaran smuggling and industrial activities have made top officers terribly wealthy, but are they ultimately in control? Ahmadinejad’s religious zealotry is obvious but how strong is the group backing him really? Khamenei is the ultimate authority but politicized religions have short track methods to deal with those.
Posted by: Felix Drost | September 29th, 2007 at 5:12 am | Report this commentRe: “The war on error”
Good piece. Thank you!
I would add a fourth reason as to why containment “is unlikely to win”; it didn’t win the Cold War. America thumped its chest and beat its drums incessantly during those years, and largely with justification. Nonetheless, as one who knew reasonably intimately Eastern Europe during those years, the Soviet sphere imploded as a result of economic failure, even more so than a failure of spirit, which is well depicted in last year’s film, “Das Leben den Anderen”. The recent book by Tim Weiner on the CIA, “Legacy of Ashes”, details how little Washington understood about the coming of the end. Recall that Ronald Reagan spoke loudly of “the evil empire” and was reluctant to share his famous grin with Mikail Gorbachev.
Thus, your focus in this piece on what may be off in the American psyche and media merits much more and persistent attention. Giving the public what it wants to hear has proved to be one of the most disturbing mistakes of both the Clinton and the Bush presidencies.
Lastly, given wide acceptance of the failure of US foreign policy, why is less criticism not directed to Condoleeza Rice? She is over promoted, as are so many in the US establishment. Failure to document her lightness leaves her with future and undeserved political potential. Begin with the fact that she neither went east of the Iron Curtain before 1993 nor learned a word of Russian in developing her highly flaunted “expertise” in the Soviet Union and its history. Karl Rove has now been outed; is it not time to remove some of the shine from this nice lady?
Washington has a bad water supply, but there are many brilliant minds inside her Beltway.
Posted by: WCM | October 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am | Report this commentCondi has charm and nice legs. What else do you expect?
Posted by: MCW | October 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm | Report this comment