Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his chance, like the leader of every other UN member country, to address the UN General Assembly today. First time I've been in the same room with him. I wanted to hear him speak and to be able to watch the reactions of others there. The Canadian UN delegation didn't even bother to show (more on that in a bit) but the delegation from the United States, Australia and other Western democracies were in their seats at the start of his speech, presumably to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and to hear if he would change his tedious tune. He did not. Within a few minutes, Ahmadinejad went off the rails and the U.S., Australia and plenty of other countries promptly got up and walked out on him. Here's the bit that prompted the exodus.
One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events: First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.
All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident.
Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.
Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.
Please take note:
It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.
In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints. 1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.
The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.
There remain, however, afew questions 10 be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them? 2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.
It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.
. I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.
Ahmadinejad then rambled on for another 20 minutes to a largely empty chamber. (You can read the Iranian government-approved English translation at the UN Web site]
Shortly after he finished, this statement was issued by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon:
“Ahmadinejad's comments on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, on the United States, and the repeated unjust condemnation of Israel are unacceptable. Iran's behaviour is a blatant violation of international standards and of the very spirit of the UN.
“Iran's 20-year history of covering up its nuclear activities requires that the authorities take steps to address a serious confidence deficit. Its non-compliance, coupled with unacceptable statements Iran has made against other nations, is a destabilizing threat to the region, and to the world.
“No steps have been taken by Iran. No progress has been made at all since the June 2010 G-8 in Canada and the May 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review in New York. The military links to Iran’s nuclear program remain completely unresolved, and Iran has made no attempt to live up to the minimum standard of compliance.
“Iran has shown continued deception towards their commitments. The right to peaceful use of nuclear energy comes with the responsibility to comply with international obligations. If Iran is being honest about its intentions, it must engage in a real dialogue on its nuclear activities.
“Canada is deeply concerned about the blatant deterioration of the human rights situation in Iran and urges the Iranian authorities to free all citizens unjustly detained in Iran, including dual nationals.
“Our collective response should illustrate to the Iranian people that we will continue to advocate for their rights and freedoms.
Aside from the lunacy of accepting that 911 was an inside job, and then asserting that 'the majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view', there is a kernel of insight into what he says (I am going to get hell for this).
“is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?”
'Classic war' is the path we chose, but it is not clear that it has been successful.