Brazilian President's United Nations speech: The Middle East

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:11 am

This is a part of Dilma Rousseff's speech to UN General Assembly yesterday regarding US interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations of the Middle East. It's well worth discussing in the light of President Obama's incompetent support this week for "American Exceptionalism".

Ladies and Gentlemen, The year 2015 will mark the 70th anniversary of the United Nations and the 10th anniversary of the 2005 World Summit.

It will be the occasion to carry out the urgent reform we have been calling for since that Summit.

It is imperative to avoid the collective defeat of reaching 2015 without a Security Council capable of fully exerting its responsibilities in today’s world.

The limited representation of the UN Security Council is an issue of grave concern, considering the challenges posed by the 21 st century.

The immense difficulty in offering a solution to the Syrian crisis and the paralysis in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict exemplify this concern.

In dealing with important issues, the recurring polarization between permanent members generates a dangerous paralysis.

We must provide the Council with voices that are at once independent and constructive. Only the expansion of the number of permanent and non permanent members and the inclusion of developing countries in both categories will correct the Council’s deficit of representation and legitimacy.

Mr. President,

The General Debate offers the opportunity to reiterate the fundamental principles which guide my country’s foreign policy and our position with regards to pressing international issues. We are guided by the defense of a multilateral world, ruled by international law, by the primacy of peaceful solutions to conflicts and by the quest for a more compassionate and just order – both economically and socially.

The crisis in Syria moves us and is cause for indignation. Two and a half years of lives lost and widespread destruction have caused the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century.

Brazil, which has in Syrian descent an important component of our nationality, is profoundly involved with this drama.

We must stop the death of innocent civilians, of children, women and the elderly. We must cease the use of arms – conventional or chemical, by the government or the rebels.

There is no military outcome. The only solution is through negotiation, dialogue and understanding.

The decision of Syria to adhere to the Chemical Weapons Convention and to immediately apply its provisions is of great importance.

This measure is instrumental to overcome the conflict and to contribute to a world free of those arms. Their use, I repeat, is heinous and inadmissible under any circumstances.

For this reason, we support the agreement reached between the United States and Russia for elimination of Syrian chemical weapons. It is up to the Syrian government to implement this agreement fully, cooperatively and in good faith.

Whatever the case, we repudiate unilateral interventions contrary to International Law, without Security Council authorization, which would only worsen the political instability of the region and increase human suffering.

In the same vein, a durable peace between Israel and Palestine takes on new urgency in view of the changes occurring in the Middle East.

The time has come to heed to the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians for an independent and sovereign state.

The time has also come to realize the wide international consensus in favor of the two state solution.

The current negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians should bring about practical and significant results towards an agreement.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The history of the twentieth century shows that forsaking multilateralism is a prelude to wars and the consequent human misery and devastation.

It also shows that the promotion of multilateralism brings benefits on ethical, political and institutional levels.

I renew, thus, an appeal in favor of a wide and vigorous convergence of political wills to sustain and reinvigorate the multilateral system, which has in the United Nations its main pillar.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:45 am

All he missed out was linking the two halves of the speech and calling for the Security Council to be limited to those countries who have been at peace for the past hundred years

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:55 pm

She, dear boy. Dilma is all woman which may in part explain her combination of empathy and outrage.

To get the Security Council back to a state of utility I reckon the General Assembly should declare the US/UK rogue states and suspend their UN voting rights indefinitely. Little else will get round the potential Security Council vetoes which are blocking a just Middle East settlement.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:37 pm

I think the UN needs doing away with entirely.

I think america needs to get its ass home and keep it here.

Good luck to everyone in each their own country.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:46 pm

flopstock;1436637 wrote: I think the UN needs doing away with entirely.

I think america needs to get its ass home and keep it here.

Good luck to everyone in each their own country.

I'd prefer to see it done the other way - instead of doing away with the UN I'd give it teeth and let it lose.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:53 pm

flopstock;1436637 wrote: I think the UN needs doing away with entirely.

I think america needs to get its ass home and keep it here.

Good luck to everyone in each their own country.

The USA might, as you say, do well to adopt a rigidly isolationist stance, and the UK might well be put into the same basket. But why does that mean the other two hundred countries should abandon the UN as a negotiating forum?

Every one of those other countries has an interest in building bridges and stopping the gunfire. Only the US and UK have been actively blowing up bridges and hiring gunmen in bulk this century. It's time they stood down and abandoned all their offensive capability.

I don't care in the least how much firepower the US and UK maintain within their own borders so long as it has no means to leave home. You could start by setting all those aircraft carriers into concrete overcoats as far up the Mississippi as they can reach. I note that the UK has already unilaterally decommissioned all of its aircraft carriers, so it's not impossible to achieve.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:49 pm

Týr;1436633 wrote: She, dear boy. Dilma is all woman which may in part explain her combination of empathy and outrage.

Empathy and outrage, great combination. To bad not very much smarts to go along with it.

Týr;1436633 wrote: To get the Security Council back to a state of utility I reckon the General Assembly should declare the US/UK rogue states and suspend their UN voting rights indefinitely.

:yh_clap

Move the whole GD thing to Rio and pay for it without us. Then see who has the huevos or ability to get anything done.

Týr;1436633 wrote: Little else will get round the potential Security Council vetoes which are blocking a just Middle East settlement.

Only folk blocking a settlement are the Arabs who in 1967 adopted the moniker "Palestinian".

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:53 pm

The UN Headquarters moving out of the USA as soon as possible would be an ideal solution, I commend it.

I see no reason at all why the US should contribute so much as a dollar to any UN fund, by all means lobby your congressperson to that effect.

By all means put the current President of Brazil into an intelligence face-off with George W., I have no doubt whatever who'd win.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:54 pm

It stays in New York City! Great for tourism & we've already lost enough money for illegal parking by Diplomats & Consulate Staff who don't pay their parking tickets!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:57 pm

Týr;1436647 wrote: The UN Headquarters moving out of the USA as soon as possible would be an ideal solution, I commend it.

I see no reason at all why the US should contribute so much as a dollar to any UN fund, by all means lobby your congressperson to that effect.

By all means put the current President of Brazil into an intelligence face-off with George W., I have no doubt whatever who'd win.

George W. hasn't been our president for five years (see, TD, I said our president!) Put her in a face-off with the President Who Counts, namely Obama.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:58 pm

Aren't the embassies all in DC?

Nobody with diplomatic immunity pays council fines either in New York or in London, it's traditional.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:03 pm

AnneBoleyn;1436649 wrote: George W. hasn't been our president for five years (see, TD, I said our president! Put her in a face-off with the President Who Counts, namely Obama.Were it not for the precedent of The Shrub I'd have written that one doesn't get to be Head of State without considerable intellectual competence.

As it is I'd have to qualify it with "or the inherited backing of a politically elite family which owns a party power base".

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:03 pm

Bryn Mawr;1436638 wrote: I'd prefer to see it done the other way - instead of doing away with the UN I'd give it teeth and let it lose.

Me too.

Be fun to see how and where it becomes a sovereign entity, raising, training, supplying its own military, and what they do with it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:03 pm

Týr;1436650 wrote: Aren't the embassies all in DC?

Nobody with diplomatic immunity pays council fines either in New York or in London, it's traditional.

Diplomats visit the Consulates here on many occasions. Diplomatic immunity has also freed rapists & other criminals. They should be required to pay for their parking tickets, no matter which nationality or whatever country they serve in. Technically, the Consulates, like the Embassies, are "foreign states". Fine, up to a point.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:08 pm

AnneBoleyn;1436653 wrote: Diplomats visit the Consulates here on many occasions. Diplomatic immunity has also freed rapists & other criminals. They should be required to pay for their parking tickets, no matter which nationality or whatever country they serve in. Technically, the Consulates, like the Embassies, are "foreign states". Fine, up to a point.As I recall, without looking it up, diplomatic rapists are still potentially subject to trial back in their own country - such prosecutions have happened. And don't US military rapists in Japan still have immunity?

Diplomatic immunity has a history going back long before your country saw its first European. By all means expel all the missions if you like but don't try tinkering with the rule book.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:17 pm

Týr;1436655 wrote: As I recall, without looking it up, diplomatic rapists are still potentially subject to trial back in their own country - such prosecutions have happened. And don't US military rapists in Japan still have immunity?

Diplomatic immunity has a history going back long before your country saw its first European. By all means expel all the missions if you like but don't try tinkering with the rule book.

1. The rapist may be subject to trial at home, but it doesn't always, or even usually happen with the cases throughout the years in NYC. I'm thinking in particular of cases where the son of someone quite high up was/is the rapist. Sent to bed with no supper is the punishment. I don't support military rapists in Japan having immunity, but you are correct sir, I believe it becomes an American military matter.

2. There were cars before the North American continent saw it's first European? Damn, it's so hard to park here! Murderous rages occur over parking! Excuse me, it's a very delicate subject.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:19 pm

Týr;1436651 wrote: Were it not for the precedent of The Shrub I'd have written that one doesn't get to be Head of State without considerable intellectual competence.

Then you would be wrong, sir!

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:21 pm

AnneBoleyn;1436658 wrote: Then you would be wrong, sir!

Ah.

Ronald.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:22 pm

Týr;1436651 wrote:

As it is I'd have to qualify it with "or the inherited backing of a politically elite family which owns a party power base".

Many voters picked young George because they said they would rather have a beer with him than Gore/Kerry, which is hilarious because the Shrub is an alcoholic who no longer drinks beer. Don't know about the coke though.

"I would rather have a snort with Mr. Bush than Mr. Gore or Mr. Kerry"

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:37 pm

Týr;1436651 wrote: Were it not for the precedent of The Shrub I'd have written that one doesn't get to be Head of State without considerable intellectual competence.

You can safely add President s Carter and Obama to that list.

Týr;1436651 wrote: As it is I'd have to qualify it with "or the inherited backing of a politically elite family which owns a party power base".

As much as I dislike the current occupant in the White House, he like former President Clinton came from humble backgrounds. Between the two, Clinton and Obama, Clinton was far superior in intellect.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:39 pm

Týr;1436659 wrote: Ah.

Ronald.

Ronald Reagan. He was the right man in the right time.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:46 pm

tude dog;1436663 wrote: Ronald Reagan. He was the right man in the right time.

Not for me. But I never denied he was my president. I gave him the respect of his office & that he democratically won the election. I didn't go out of my way to undercut him; to deny him his due; to set up obstacles.

That's the difference between Democrats & Republicans.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:25 pm

tude dog;1436663 wrote: Ronald Reagan. He was the right man in the right time.

Ronald Reagan started this whole mess

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1436665 wrote: Not for me. But I never denied he was my president. I gave him the respect of his office & that he democratically won the election. I didn't go out of my way to undercut him; to deny him his due; to set up obstacles.

That's the difference between Democrats & Republicans.

Oh please, stop it.

Obama is not MY President, for better or worse, he is OUR President.

From day one Bush 43 received nothing but bitterness from the Dems/Libs/Progressives which continues to this day.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:09 pm

flopstock;1436667 wrote: Ronald Reagan started this whole mess

I dunno what mess yer talking 'bout.

Does President Jimmy Carter ring a bell?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:06 pm

tude dog;1436670 wrote: Oh please, stop it.

Obama is not MY President, for better or worse, he is OUR President.

From day one Bush 43 received nothing but bitterness from the Dems/Libs/Progressives which continues to this day.

If Obama is Our President, then he is Your President too. Just not the guy you voted for or like.

As for Bush 43, he got most everything that he put forth or wanted, good or bad. It wasn't bitterness he received but I will admit to comedic derision.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:58 pm

Could I add the following comment as an observation rather than a criticism.

Thought this thread was about the President of Brazil's UN speech................not about the US Presidents and their short comings.

The world doesn't and has never revolved around America.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:28 pm

Bruv;1436737 wrote: Could I add the following comment as an observation rather than a criticism.

Thought this thread was about the President of Brazil's UN speech................not about the US Presidents and their short comings.

The world doesn't and has never revolved around America.

I would agree with you except for this at the beginning of the post

This is a part of Dilma Rousseff's speech to UN General Assembly yesterday regarding US interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations of the Middle East. It's well worth discussing in the light of President Obama's incompetent support this week for "American Exceptionalism".

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:21 am

Excellent observation Flop.

As for you Bruv, like it or not American influence is everywhere, in every corner of the globe. I'm not cheering over this, just observing.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:13 pm

AnneBoleyn;1436731 wrote: If Obama is Our President, then he is Your President too. Just not the guy you voted for or like.

As for Bush 43, he got most everything that he put forth or wanted, good or bad. It wasn't bitterness he received but I will admit to comedic derision.

Seems i remember early on no body could make a joke about the new president. No conpiricy, just nothing

Now days, there is nothing funny.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:27 pm

tude dog;1436805 wrote: Seems i remember early on no body could make a joke about the new president. No conpiricy, just nothing

Now days, there is nothing funny.

I think you're thinking of when Obama was called a monkey, & even though George W. was also called that, it was felt in the case of Obama it was racist.

Aw, c'mon! Turn that frown upside down!

Seriously, if I may, politically it is not much fun; I'm sure we're saying that for different reasons. Maybe not. Heard any new Anthony Weiner jokes lately? He was once my congressguy.