Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Not only that but did you hear Annan's recent critic of Bush in his farewell speech. He certainly didn't use"diplomacy". If Bolton or Bush said those things about Annan, the liberals would be going beserk. I am sure they don't even see the double standard.
|
Ace....did you read Annan's speech? Can you point to those sections where he criticized Bush in an undiplomatic manner.
IMO, it was the opposite. He was quite diplomatic in his criticism of current US policy....making infered references to our policy on prisoner interrogation (and the lack of basic rights) and our invasion of Iraq.
Quote:
...states need to play by the rules towards each other, as well as towards their own citizens. That can sometimes be inconvenient, but ultimately what matters is not convenience. It is doing the right thing. No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose — for broadly shared aims — in accordance with broadly accepted norms.
No community anywhere suffers from too much rule of law; many do suffer from too little — and the international community is among them. This we must change.
The U.S. has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level. As Harry Truman said, "We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please."
...
As President Truman said, "the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world." He showed what can be achieved when the U.S. assumes that responsibility. And still today, none of our global institutions can accomplish much when the U.S. remains aloof. But when it is fully engaged, the sky's the limit. (I think this particulary remark is more a criticism of Bolton, not Bush - but I still dont see it as undiplomatic.)
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/annan.htm
|
Where is he NOT diplomatic in this speech?
I would criticize Annan for many things. He ignored (or even fostered) corruption. He stiffled some efforts at reforming the UN. He rarely criticized the Arab nations for their lack of action on fostering terrorism.
But there is no double standard when it comes to reaction to this speech. IMO, the overreaction of the right is just another chance for them to slap the UN.
One can only hope that the next US ambassador and the next UN Secetary General (
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon) are both more effective in their respective jobs because the UN, with all its faults and the need for reform, still serves a valuable purpose for the US and the world.