Barack Obama Compares Attacks on Americans in Libya to an Attack on UN Ideals

The recent attacks on American civilians in Benghazi, Libya, were “an assault on America.” Furthermore, Washington is of the opinion that they were “an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded.” U.S. President Barack Obama expressed these opinions in his speech today at the 67th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

He explained that he was referring to the notions that nations could resolve their differences through diplomatic and not military means, and to the interdependence of countries and peoples in an “interdependent world,” in the interests of “greater opportunity and security” for all citizens. To support these ideals, in Obama’s opinion, it is not enough to increase embassy protection and sit and wait until the wave of disturbances subsides. We must first of all “speak honestly about the deeper causes” of the crisis, said Obama, who was, judging by the context, referring to the recent stormy events in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Incidentally, his attempts to interpret and comprehend them were the leitmotif of his entire speech.

As we know, many people around the world see the main reasons for the “attack on America” as the country’s very own policies. Naturally, however, there was not the slightest hint of self-criticism in the U.S. president’s speech. On the contrary, he constantly emphasized that Washington was “on the side of the people,” to ceaselessly oppose “dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend upon the status quo and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division” with the aim of “democratic ideals.” On the whole — to speak out for everything that is good against everything that is bad.

Obama made assurances that the U.S. “has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.” At the same time, however, he referred to the overthrowing of the “tyrant” in Libya itself, and asserted that “the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.” Also, he repeated the warning that Washington could not tolerate Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons because, in his opinion, “a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.”

Overall, Obama’s half-hour speech from the podium of the international community’s main organization followed an entirely traditional pattern of American foreign policy rhetoric. It seems, at first glance, that it contained no new, brave ideas at all. However, this is understandable, as the U.S. is in the final stages of its presidential race and Obama will be participating in debates with Republican candidate Mitt Romney within literally the next week. Of course, he has now given his rival no excuses to criticize or pose difficult questions in a chauvinistic spirit.

It is possible that it was for this very reason the U.S. president concluded his speech on an optimistic note. “It is because of the progress I’ve witnessed that after nearly four years as president, [that] I am hopeful about the world we live in,” he said. “The war in Iraq is over, and our troops have come home. We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014. Al-Qaida has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals. I’ve seen hard choices made — from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan — to put more power in the hands of citizens.”

There were no other mentions of Russia in the U.S. president’s speech.