UN General Assembly Meeting: Chavez, what were you thinking?

September 21, 2006

On a day that included non-sensical ramblings by significant world political feagures: Venezuala’s President, Hugo Chavez, and the flamboyance of his demonizing tongue calling out Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his complete and utter lack of interest to answer CNN’s Anderson Cooper with substantive, definitive answers on Israel, the Holocaust and other sensitive diplomatic and foreign policy issues and of course, our very own, President, George W. Bush, who continues to support the actions that the rest of the country and even a large portion of his own administration have realized as mistakes. Bush continues to remind me of a patronizing Don King promoting situation after situation without a realization of the ruins left behind from previous promotions. I see this uncomfortable level of desperation in Bush – looking out and trying to convince a world populous of naysayers with non-substantive attacks. Let’s be honest, George, assuming Iran’s nuclear activities are truly intended to have a military bias, rather than a domestic production benefit to produce electricity, Iran would NEVER in their right mind unleash a nuclear warhead towards the United States or one of our allies. Think about this from a political and strategic framework. What do they have to win by doing so? The international response would completely and utterly destroy the very land they are trying to protect, prove to foreign diplomats that currently disagree with the Bush Administration’s strong position with Iran that the US and Bush were actually right all along and lead them into a war they know they couldn’t win.  No way, they have far more to lose than they do to win. They want to be significant, they want to be considered relevant in the developments of the world. And let’s face it, military strength seems to be an important characteristic of a leading world power.  Look what happened to the helpless Lebanese who stood no chance without a military strength.  Military strength is not always about unleashing force, but rather the benefits that come with knowing that others respect your ability to protect itself.  By no means do I support Iran or any other country in the world (including the US) to build nuclear military power.  However, I have a hard time sitting in a protected country ripe with military strength and not appreciating why others seek the same defensive security.  This has to be handled with caution and can ONLY be handled through Diplomacy. A stalemate will not serve either side well and it certainly won’t serve the citizens in either region with any level of comfort and calmness. Collaborate on the situation to make the world a more peaceful place!

And through all of this, while the world leader’s had a stage to make a difference, convert rhetoric into policy and show the world as a whole that we can trust those that we have empowered to embrace diplomacy that constitutes humanity as its single most important objective, we ended up with bitter words, diffusive arguments and a taller, deeper wall that divides humanity and diplomacy.

And yes, the ONLY person that rose from the “sulfur of the stage”, was Former President Bill Clinton. For those of you who had an opportunity to watch his CNN interview in entirity, it was a sad reminder of how good it used to be and how close we really were to establishing peace in the middle east.  Charasmatic, direct, articulate, INTELLIGENT and strategic. He is a clever individual that understands human psychology and how to address situations that have obvious and clear opponents. He can bridge differences which is in stark contract to Bush, who would rather destroy a bridge rather than work hand in hand to build one. Bill Clinton, while a bit self-serving through his interview, was brilliant in his ability to insert his jabs at the Republican Administration, present and past, and remind the common citizen that one of our greatest past leaders is likeminded in our thinking of foreign policy with understandable outrage at the current administration. Life is not entirely rosey with Clinton.  Anyone as intelligent and shrewd as he must have hidden political agendas and motives that lie deep and far out – helping the democrats win position in the Presidency, gain majority in the House and if possible, inch closer to 50/50 in the Senate are obvious. And why not? Outside of the fact that he is supporting his very own party, could it be because Hillary will be running 4-8 years out? And a strong Democratic party with a wave of momentum at the time of her election could only help her cause. And let’s face it, there is only one thing Clinton would hate to see more than another string of bad Republican leaders, is to see his wife lose to a Republican led campaign and potentially smear the Clinton legacy. We all know that Clinton was soft on foreign policy as it relates to sending a message of fear. But, his softness was a simple result of peacemaking. It is tough to inspire peace, while drawing out reactionary threats and ultimatums if peace policies are not reached. Credibility is a critical attribute. Like stated in the Art of War, keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. Clinton knew that strategy well and a lesson that Bush should take as he suckles on a bottle of warm milk.


One Response to “UN General Assembly Meeting: Chavez, what were you thinking?”

  1. If you are going for best contents like I do, just go to see
    this website every day for the reason that it provides quality contents, thanks

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

%d bloggers like this: