Obama’s message to the world at the UN: screw you.

President Obama has laid out his foreign policy for the world to see in his last speech at the UN (Sept 24, 2013). It’s not a pretty picture. He basically said “we’ll do what we think is better for us even in your own nations without your consent”. Seriously. Obama has declared the US the police of the planet.

The president has stated that he will have no problem working with dictators as long as they work for the US interests:

 “The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our [own] view, the highest international expectations [meaning tyrants], but who work with us on our core interests.”

Nor has he any problem in disregarding nation-sovereignty:

“the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order.  But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye.”

the danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries… The danger for the world is that the United States may disengage… I believe such disengagement would be a mistake.

“even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities…”

All of the above means clearly that the US gives itself the right and will intervene militarily in any country it sees fit if the tyrants are NOT working with “us on our core interests”. And for those tyrants that work with the US, he promises them:

“We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.”


Obama was blunt about what the world can expect of him:

“So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.

“The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the [Arab] region.”

“Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners [including the tyrants], respect the sovereignty of nations [“whenever possible”], and work to address the root causes of terror [what are they?].  But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.”

About the UN itself, he made military intervention a requirement as UN’s policy:

“without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. “

And then made a not-so-veiled threat to the UN in the form of a big “if”:

“If we [UN] cannot agree even on this [military intervention against Assad], then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws.

The dangling question, of course, is: What would happen to the UN if it proves itself “incapable of enforcing” these laws which the US wants to be enforced? Is the US going to leave the UN? Withhold its dues? Spy on everybody? Oops, that’s  already been done.

With regards to Syria, well, this is going to be long war: 

“Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. [Obama said sovereignty will not be respected if he doesn’t like the ‘government’.]

“Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured countryThe notion that Syria can somehow return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy.

…the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation. Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and the world, [the Iranian people’s wishes are not important] and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential — in commerce and culture; in science and education. [They will not “meet” those potentials if they don’t obey the US policies for them.]

And then he extends the Syria policy to the rest of the Arab world:

“What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy toward Syria? 

“we will be engaged in the [Arab] region for the long haul.”

“We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world.  Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.”

There’s no ‘international interest’, only the US interests. If you agree with that, then you agree with Obama’s stance on foreign policy. Fine. But, his stance  means WAR because the international community will not stand to protect the US’s interests against their own national and sovereign interests.

Any nation that doesn’t abide to the US interests is, in the words of Bush2 and now Obama, a terrorist nation.

Welcome to the ETERNAL war on ‘terrorism’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s