Obama's State of the World Address to the UN

Dear Mr. President,

I listened to your speech at the UN yesterday. No question you’re a good speechifier. They always sound so good, make so much sense—and you’re so sincere. Until one ponders what you said—phrases, sentences, words that shift meaning to paint a different interpretation of reality, the distortions, critical omissions, outright lies. Like the part about the UN’s successful humanitarian mission in Libya—no mention of its descent into chaos and the regional instability that followed. Or the military coup in Egypt which “shows movement toward democratic reforms”—no mention that the coup overthrew a democratically elected government and has reverted to the Mubarak era’s repression and brutality. But what really caught my attention were a few lines about the Middle East and North Africa. You are prepared to “use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region,” you said. Our core interests, it turns out, is “the free flow of energy from the region to the world.” Can’t get clearer than that. It’s all about the oil. Always has been, always will be. (You also said that a nation “cannot covet resources of other nations.” Maybe “free flow” differs from taking by force like we tried to do in Iraq, but it’s a subtle distinction.) It was an aggressive militant, threatening speech that promises more war: we’ll keep using drones, you said, targeting only known imminent threats where capture is not possible and civilian casualties will be minimal; you threatened to use military force in Syria if Assad does not cooperate, declared he must step down, and challenged the UN to “mean what it says” and use force to ensure compliance with international law. Our global surveillance program that has so enraged the world was only mentioned briefly; we are reviewing it, no acknowledgement of the scathing denunciation by Brazil’s Roussaff who said. “Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and an affront to the principles that must guide relations among them… The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another… In the absence of privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore, no effective democracy. In the absence of respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for a relationship among nations.” Dilma Rousseff understands democracy, Mr. President. Listen to her.