Since September 15th the 70th United Nations plenary assembly has been meeting in New York. The many global crises and challenges gave rise to this occasion. Both the American President Obama and Russia’s President Putin presented in their speeches evaluations of the issues and possible initial solutions. It is highly informative and instructive to directly compare these speeches: especially taking a closer look at the differing strategies.
President Putin’s speech is distinguished by both an absolutely clear objectivity and a winning vision - namely the vision of finding the way back to a common goal and common negotiations as the basis for long-term secure world peace.
Putin calls into remembrance that the United Nations was founded under the impressions of two world wars with millions of dead, as a platform for unifying many different viewpoints and as an instrument for taking a common stance in securing world peace. President Putin emphasized that the freedom of each individual citizen as well as the sovereignty of the nations can only be guaranteed through common acceptance and consultation.
In comparison to this, US President Obama’s speech was dominated by a totally different spirit and attitude. One example: Obama called Assad a “tyrant”, claiming: one could not work together with him. This attitude seems more than questionable in light of the fact that Assad’s Syrian army and the Kurdish militia are the only ground troops who are effectively fighting the ISIS and other terror organizations. The USA was never otherwise squeamish about whom they choose to be their allies. We remind here of the alliance with Saudi Arabia.
Obama continued with the question: “Does it make sense to work together with Assad” and imme-diately linked this question to the claim or accusation that Assad is “some one who bombs his own people with barrel bombs (IED)”. This unfounded claim and accusation strategy is a central theme that can be found in all US foreign policy. With the hospital incubator lie and the claim that Iraq had chemical-weapons, the USA justified starting a war against Iraq - and this in a solo effort without any consultation in a plenary UN meeting. President Assad counters with the question what his goal should be for supposedly bombing his own people. This question gives rise to the appropriate ques-tion: Who drops the most bombs on civilians? The answer: certainly the American air force with its 14 current active wars, world-wide.
Further, Obama continued, with the high point of his speech, by naming China, Russia, and Iran as enemies of the USA, and mentioning that “Islam is not compatible with peace”. These destructive assessments should make us sit up and take notice and fear that as long as the US government con-tinues to take arbitration decisions alone there can be no lasting peace.
In his speech President Putin clearly marked this strategy of the USA and their allies, yet without directly naming names or attacking. Because President Putin abstains from all accusations and con-tention even if they were actually appropriate at this occasion, he underlines his convincing efforts towards peace. Putin directed the attention of the UN assembly members towards how important common consultation is - especially in light of the Middle East and refugee crises - within the framework of the United Nations. Russia recognizes exactly this - the sore point - in the efforts to-wards world peace and for this reason is with all its strength supporting ratification by all nations - so a common consensus of all the nations. Putin underlined what an extremely dangerous venture it is to strike out alone, as has been done, increasingly for a long time now by the new global power-center - here he means the USA and allies. To give up efforts towards common consensus of all na-tions together would lead to enforced rule by an elite minority, and result in oppression of equality and sovereignty of all nations.
As an example of this Putin reminds of the aggressive intervention by the USA and its allies in the national sovereignty of the North African and Middle Eastern countries. This was a solo effort, meaning without the agreement of all nations. And instead of the promised victory of democracy and development, violence, poverty and a social catastrophe is what these countries received. This was especially achieved through infiltration of the destabilized countries with militant and terrorist groups like the Islamic State. Support for such groups by the USA is an extremely dangerous ...