President Obama’s Mixed Messages to the UN General Assembly

President Obama delivered his annual speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24th. This speech was his strongest UN General Assembly address to date, which doesn’t say very much given his prior speeches that presented a portrait of a humble America that must defer more often to the will of the “international community.” And even this speech, like many of his prior speeches directed to global audiences, contained some strains of America-bashing.

Obama’s critical reference to the racial strife in Ferguson, Missouri did not belong in a UN General Assembly speech, particularly to an audience of leaders of countries with human rights records that would make what happened in Ferguson pale by comparison. All that this gratuitous reference to a domestic problem did was hand propaganda points to the enemies of freedom and human dignity that they will use to justify their own truly atrocious behavior. Nevertheless, following on the heels of the launch of airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, the president finally used his global platform at the UN to firmly assert some global leadership. Rather than look to the United Nations to legitimize U.S. foreign policy decisions as he has done in the past, President Obama used his speech at the UN to finally declare to the world that “The United States will never shy away from defending our interests.” And he finally backed up his words with deeds. President Obama made clear his determination to lead a coalition, including some Sunni Arab states, in a campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS (or ISIL as he refers to the jihadist group). He also called on “the world -- especially Muslim communities -- to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL.” It’s been nearly six long years since we have heard anything approaching such forceful words – backed up by the use of military force – from this president.

---

Obama also strongly condemned Russia’s continuing aggressive actions against Ukraine. “Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition,” the president said. He went on to accuse the Putin regime of harboring a “vision of the world in which might makes right -- a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed.” Obama called for Russia to return to a path of more constructive cooperation of the kind shown during the early post-Cold War years. Otherwise, he warned, “We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth.” Obama also made clear his commitment to NATO and our “collective self-defense.” This part of his speech sounded more like Obama’s typical rhetoric than evincing any clear intention to actually take effective steps against Russian aggression. With respect to Iran’s nuclear arms threat, Obama reverted to his more customary weak self. Four years ago, Obama declared from the same General Assembly platform that the door to diplomacy with Iran remains open. In this year’s speech, after several months of negotiations heading nowhere positive, Obama made a similar pitch to Iran. “My message to Iran’s leaders and people has been simple and consistent: Do not let this opportunity pass,” he said. “We can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful.” This is typical Obama pie-in-the-sky talk. Whatever piece of paper that the Iranian regime may end up signing will not be worth the weight of the paper it is written on. Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already signaled his real view of the negotiations. Iran is open to cooperating with any country in the world, he said last month, “with two exceptions: the Zionist regime and the U.S.” Iran’s negotiations with the U.S., have been “useless,” Khamenei added. Obama failed to lay out any parameters for an acceptable outcome, beyond which the U.S. would have to pursue alternative measures to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear arms “break-out” capability. Other than the specifics in Obama’s General Assembly speech dealing with the ISIS threat, the address continued to display wishful thinking on the president’s part. “We choose to work for the world as it should be,” President Obama said. This may be a fine aspirational sentiment for the future, but we expect the leader of the free world to deal with the world as it is today. Yet, while acknowledging there is “pervasive unease in our world” and that there are serious problems to be solved, Obama told the world leaders gathered for this year’s General Assembly session that “this is the best time in human history to be born.” In a throwback to his “hope and change” campaign mantra of 2008, Obama added that “We choose hope over fear… I have seen a longing for positive change.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in his own address to the General Assembly on September 24th, had a better grip on reality. “This year, the horizon of hope is darkened,” he said. The world seems to be “falling apart, as crises pile up and disease spreads,” he added. Today’s world under this president has descended into chaos with a growing potential for weapons of mass destruction to end up sooner or later in the hands of jihadists determined to kill all “infidels” who get in their way and to establish global Islamic supremacy. President Obama’s forceful move against ISIS is a hopeful sign. But it must be accompanied by clear-eyed strategic thinking that understands and addresses the underlying global jihadist threat we are facing. It stems in the ideology of the supremacism of Islam that is rooted in the Koran and sharia law. This is the enemy that we face, not just individual disconnected terrorist organizations de jour. Obama was right when he said in his speech that “we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations.” It is not a clash of civilizations that we face. It is a clash between barbaric evil and civilization. But he was wrong when he said that “Belief in permanent religious war is the misguided refuge of extremists who cannot build or create anything.” The jihadists believe that permanent religious war against the “infidels’ – whether conducted through violence or through the indoctrination and institutional manipulation of stealth jihad – is the path to the creation and building of their global caliphate. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whom Obama is now turning to as part of his “coalition,” buy into this jihadist supremacist ideology and cannot be fully trusted. Indeed, they have directly or indirectly contributed to the funding and growth of jihadist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. The same goes for Turkey. Egypt’s present government, on the other hand, has taken on the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadists. Obama should help them in their own fight against these jihadists and enlist Egypt’s help in fighting ISIS in return. Yet they have not been mentioned to date as an active member of the coalition the Obama administration has assembled to fight ISIS. And whatever issues Obama might have with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama should stand firmly and unequivocally with Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah – two other jihadist groups with the same Islamic supremacist ideology. Israel is a pluralistic, Western-style democracy that upholds individual dignity and freedoms – everything that Hamas and Hezbollah are not. It may be too much to hope, but perhaps next year President Obama will finally use his General Assembly speech to connect the dots and properly define the gravest enemy to human freedom and dignity - global jihad. Sadly, that is highly unlikely.