Looks like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outdid Colonel Gadaffi yesterday at the UN. Although Gadaffi's made some valid points, his speech was disjointed and poorly delivered. His antics may have also overshadowed the message he intended to deliver.
Not so with President Ahmadinejad!
His speech was well written, and was presented with a flare of polish. Although I do not agree with everything the Iranian leader said, such as his insistence that his county's pursuit of nuclear energy is entirely for peaceful purposes, I believe that Ahmadinejad made a very strong case against the UN. He clearly delineates and explains the points Gadaffi alluded to in his speech. Specifically, Ahmadinejad details just how the major powers in the UN Security Council, specifically the US and the UK, use their veto power and their permanent status to persue their own ends at the expense of smaller and weaker nations.
Following are a few excerpts from Ahmadinejad's speech that, I believe, firmly justify his anger toward the West. The full transcript of his speech can be read here.
[J]ustice has become a victim of force and aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful; Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility; for some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value.
The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.
Apparently, several Western delegates walked out during the speech. Perhaps they could not bear to hear the truth.