How's the world responding to Bush's UN speech?
From the Moscow Times:
President George W. Bush, trying to soften his image overseas as a heavy-handed unilateralist, is using his annual address to the United Nations to offer up a brighter vision of a planet with less hunger, disease and oppression.
Exactly six weeks before Election Day, Bush is equally concerned about his audience at home. In his speech Tuesday before the world body, Bush was making a firm defense of his decision to invade Iraq, although violence is surging and U.S. casualties mounting 17 months after the president declared major combat operations over.
But unlike his speech to the United Nations last year, Bush was not devoting the majority of his 35-minute address to Iraq and terrorism. His aim is to persuade U.S. voters and a skeptical global audience that there is more to his foreign policy than grim warnings about terror and aggressive use of U.S military force.
His message is that the world is a better place thanks to his policies, and will get better still if nations band together to cooperate with his initiatives.
He has his work here cut out for him: Last week, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that from his point of view, the U.S.-led Iraq invasion was illegal.
And that was among the more generous takes.
Most considered it light on any substance, as in this report from the
International Herald Tribune
The president's comments, delivered in a businesslike tone, broke no new ground -- except for a proposal to create a democracy-fostering effort under UN auspices -- and were greeted with applause only at their conclusion, much as happened in his 2003 appearance.
This was in contrast to the warm, persistent applause that met his appearance shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush's speech Tuesday followed some unusually pointed criticism from Annan, who included in his condemnation of a litany of rights abuses -- a list that included the atrocities in Sudan, child mutilations in Uganda, and the killing of schoolchildren in Russia -- the fact that the world had seen ``Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused'' by U.S. soldiers.
``Excellencies, no cause, no grievance, however legitimate in itself, can begin to justify such acts,'' Annan said. ``Every nation that proclaims a rule of law at home must respect it abroad.''
Annan's intro, calling the war in Iraq illegal received wide coverage, from the Taipei Times:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan took a fresh jab at US President George W. Bush yesterday, in a clear sign that world opinion was still far from making peace with the war in Iraq.
Annan opened this year's annual debate of world leaders at the UN by criticizing Bush's plan to deliver democracy to Iraq through force in a pointed speech aimed at underlining the importance of 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, according to his prepared remarks.
And support for Kerry is building, as this editorial from the Toronto Star shows:
The biggest threat the U.S. faces is from Al Qaeda, Kerry argued. Toppling Saddam "was a profound diversion." It brought "a chaos that has left America less secure," let Osama bin Laden escape and offers "the prospect of a war with no end in sight." And Kerry pounded Bush for "a series of catastrophic decisions" that have left the U.S. isolated and vulnerable as Mideast radicalism, terrorism and nuclear proliferation grow.
Then Kerry delivered his knockout: "If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq. And he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes."
While pressing the attack, Kerry also covered his flank by explaining his vote in Congress in 2002 to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. He insisted he voted that way because he wanted to give Bush a "strong hand to play" at the United Nations to get Saddam to disarm.
Instead, Bush "rushed into war" without a U.N. okay, a broad alliance or a plan for postwar Iraq. And today "Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way," Kerry charged.
Kerry contends he would do better than Bush in getting "the world's major powers" to help the U.S. rebuild Iraq, and in making sure democratic elections can be held next year. That may be overly optimistic. Few allies are anxious to wade in, and the place is growing ever more violent.
The truth is, there will be no easy exit from Iraq.
But Kerry has usefully called attention to the vacuousness of Bush's rhetoric about freedom finding a way as the smoke of battle grows thicker. He has made the case that Washington's unilateral approach has been a disaster. And he warns Bush will offer only more of the same if he wins a second term. The debate is on.
Could it be stirring up a major realignment in the UN security council? From South Africa's News24.com:
Brazil, Germany, India and Japan on Tuesday launched a joint bid for permanent seats on a reformed Security Council, saying that the council must "reflect the realities of the international community in the 21st century."
Update [2004-9-22 16:55:0 by zic]: And just in from the
New York Times "Bush speech to U.N. wins few plaudits in Europe"