Bush Spins at the UN

Bush Spins at the UN

George W. Bush’s September 21 speech to the United Nations, marked by an air of unreality and hypocrisy, was insulting to many other nations.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

George W. Bush’s September 21 speech to the United Nations, marked by an air of unreality and hypocrisy, was insulting to many other nations. Bush presented the United States as the world’s premier social worker, leading the fight against AIDS, poverty, child trafficking, human cloning and genocide in Darfur. At best, the Administration has a mixed record in these areas, while the United States continues to give less overseas aid as a percentage of gross national income than any other industrialized country. Moreover, the Administration has focused virtually nonstop on terrorism and Iraq, even when other countries have wanted to talk about trade, economic development and other issues.

Bush further insulted his listeners by speaking about Iraq as if the United States did what other UN members were not willing to do–namely, enforce UN Security Council resolutions. By arguing that the war on Iraq was necessary to enforce such resolutions, he ignored the irony of the situation as revealed after the US invasion: Iraq, it turned out, was in substantial compliance with UN demands to disarm. Bush made no acknowledgment of error in the US assessment of the Iraqi threat or its violation of the UN charter in going to war there, nor any acknowledgment of the chaos and destruction caused by its misguided adventure.

At the same time, Bush presented Iraq and Afghanistan as cases in which the United States was leading a noble cause to bring democracy and liberty to the peoples of the Middle East, while ignoring the problems his policies have helped cause: He made no mention of growing radicalism, heightened hostilities or the money and lives wasted. He likewise gave no sense that the United States is willing to rethink its policies and priorities, and thus offered little reason for other countries to extend significant help in stabilizing Iraq. He did give a nod toward a somewhat more evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, but he started by talking about the failures of the Palestinian leadership, not the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

The President’s speech, with its grandiose claims of bringing liberty and democracy to the world, contrasted sharply with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s emphasis on the rule of law. “Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it,” Annan said in remarks before Bush’s speech, an implicit criticism of US actions. Annan’s approach is far more likely to create the foundations for an international order that makes possible the spread of democracy than is a self-determined and selective American crusade.

Bush’s remarks stood in sharp contrast to a speech the day before by his rival for the presidency, John Kerry, in which Kerry promised to work closely with foreign leaders and international bodies to restore stability in Iraq (see David Corn, “Kerry’s Iraq Plan,” page 4), although he gave little idea of how he intends to accomplish that.

Bush and Kerry will meet in their first debate, devoted entirely to foreign policy, on September 30. Iraq is an important but by no means the only foreign policy issue facing the next President. Voters deserve to hear a serious exchange about Iraq as well as the candidates’ plans to advance peace, nuclear disarmament and economic justice. And, as Annan’s remarks indicate, we need to know how each candidate proposes to restore the United States, now widely viewed as an outlaw, to good standing among the nations of the world.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x