(Image from United Nations)
The 64th session of United Nations General Assembly generated more than the usual buzz with some high-profile débuts and rants. We look at how media covered the leaders who rose above the crowd at the UN General Assembly.
“Together we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides, coalitions of different faiths and creeds, of North and South, East, West, black, white and brown. The choice is ours.” --Barack Obama, U.S. President
The New York Times reported President Obama’s speech at the UN was a breath of fresh air, with an emphasis on positivity.
“I think there was a lot of excitement because he had such a positive attitude towards the UN. The previous administration though they were using it towards the end for all kinds of things, they also tended to denigrate it. Obama was much more positive.”
MinnPost.com has the view Obama speech was written to accomplish a specific goal.
“It was aimed at pleasing a largely anti-Bush administration crowd by putting as much rhetorical daylight between himself and the previous president as possible.”
And then there was Col. Muammar Qaddafi, president of Libya, who rambled a little; speaking for 96 minutes instead of the 15 he was allocated. FOX News called it ‘Qaddafi’s fiery rant’ as the Libyan President broached many topics, including jetlag.
“I wake up at 4 o’clock, before dawn, because in Libya, it is 11 o’clock in the morning.”
Sky News has the perspective for Col. Gaddafi, all the world’s a stage and he believes he plays many parts. “[He] treated the Assembly to a line-by-line analysis to what he thinks is wrong with the Council. The self-styled champion of the oppressed, Col. Gaddafi said smaller countries should have more power. All nations should be on an equal footing. It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the terror council.”
CBS’ Katie Couric believes Qaddafi’s antics should be taken more seriously. “One newspaper called it ‘Day of the Dictators’, two men who were not high on the White House holiday card list, Muammar Qaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, address the UN General Assembly. There’s a temptation to dismiss these two as characters.”
…
“But they are not quirky relatives US diplomats have to see once a year at family gatherings. They are world leaders.”
While many world leaders were bringing new controversies to the table, Reuters had video of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterating the same points of the past, naturally including a tirade on Israel.
“It is unacceptable that a small minority should dominate the politics, economy, and culture of vast parts of the world through a complicated network, and establish a new form, in fact, of slavery.” An expert on Iranian politics and University of Toronto professor said on Canada’s CTV that Ahmadinejad’s speech was mostly inflammatory rhetoric.
“As usual there is a lot of ideological posturing that I identify as noise, though there was a little bit of music. The ideology has to do with the necessity of transforming the world, reforming the UN.”
Canadian leaders walked out on Ahmadinejad but Emma Ruby-Sachs at the Huffington Post said, “Today, I’m ashamed to be Canadian.” She said the need for dialogue was too important.
“We must be present, for all of it, or risk undoing the very process of international diplomacy that might make things a little better for the people of Iran and for the citizens of the world.” But a FOX News clip shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said forget dialogue, and attacked the UN for giving Ahmadinejad an audience.
“A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!”
FOX News has the view of Martin Indyk, Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute and a former Ambassador to Israel who believes Netanyahu’s harsh words were much needed.
"Mr. Ambassador, after a couple days of wacky speeches, finally a healthy dose of reality, don’t you think? Ambassador: I would say so.”
“Ambassador: He, I think, wanted to make a clear parallel between Ahmadinejad and Hitler. The sense of the gathering clouds, of Iranian extremism led by Ahmadinejad, combined with Iran’s bid for nuclear weapons, warning the body that this is a real potent recipe for the kind of thing that happened in the Holocaust.”
But from the perspective of Al Jazeera English correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin, all the leader’s condemnations amount to nothing more than banter. “…now that Iranians and Israelis have traded insults and the latest gathering of Middle East peace plaers amounted to nothing more than a photo opportunity, the region’s players are leaving New York without being any closer to solving their fundamental differences.”
