NationStates Jolt Archive

As you probably know, each of the 192 member countries has sent its head of State, head of government or foreign affairs minister to address the General Assembly. Each nation will be heard - from "giants" Russia, US, France, UK and China to tiny Tuvalu, San Marino, Nauru and Monaco.

You can watch every speech (or read the transcript) here (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/).

Notable speeches to look out for (the link is to the video):

* United States (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070925am.rm?start=00:47:26&end=01:06:48): Bush's last speech as President (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/usa-eng.pdf))
* France (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070925am2.rm?start=00:51:56&end=01:07:56): Sarkozy's first speech as President (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/france-fr.pdf))
* Nicaragua (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070925am2.rm?start=01:09:17&end=01:43:07): Daniel Ortega
* Iran (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070925pm2.rm?start=00:00:48&end=00:39:17): Ahmadinejad sets out his "solutions" to all the world's "problems" (transcript (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070925pm2.rm?start=00:00:48&end=00:39:17))
* Afghanistan (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070925pm3.rm?start=00:28:34&end=00:40:00) (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/afghanistan-eng.pdf))
* Turkmenistan (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070926am.rm?start=00:56:33&end=01:11:47): What is Turkmenistan saying for itself now that Niyazov is dead? (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/turkmenistan-eng.pdf))
* Iraq (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070926am3.rm?start=00:15:38&end=00:37:38) (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/iraq-en.pdf))
* Cuba (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070926am3.rm?start=00:38:14&end=00:59:52): No, it's not Castro... It's the Cuban minister for foreign affairs. (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/cuba-eng.pdf))
* Swaziland (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070926pm1.rm?start=00:01:34&end=00:18:05): No particular reason... Aren't you interested to hear what King Mswati III wants to say to the UN? ;) (transcript (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/swaziland-en.pdf))

Still to come...

Today
Zimbabwe
Venezuela

September 27
Democratic Republic of the Congo (What is the government going to say about this year's events in the DRC?)
Thailand (cf also the current situation there)

September 28
United Kingdom
Fiji (Commodore Bainimara, interim military leader, will be seeking international support (http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=71220))
Palestine (not a member; has oberserver status)
San Marino (Everybody's favourite country outlines its foreign policy and view of the world)
Russia
China
Belarus
Pakistan

October 1st
Israel
Tuvalu (Tuvalu joined the UN mainly to express its plight to the world as the country sinks into the ocean because of climate change; within our lifetime, the entire population of Tuvalu will become homeless climate refugees)
Syria
Holy See (not a member; has observer status; will the Pope himself address the UN?)
Myanmar (Need I even say why everyone's waiting to see this one?)

October 2nd
North Korea
Kiribati (cf Tuvalu above; Kiribati's President recently said it was too late now to save his country from complete destruction due to climate change)
Somalia

October 3rd
Sudan

I read the Turkmen speech. It talks a lot about how Turkmenistan is working for regional stability in Central Asia, opposes WMD proliferation (not only will they not develop WMDs themselves, but they will not allow WMDs to be transported through their territory - a nice touch), and in general is trying to do its part for a better world. It mentions democratic reform, and the gist is this: Democracy is coming to Turkmenistan. It is coming at its own pace, but it is inevitable, and we have both internal and external support for the process. Thank you for supporting democracy in Turkmenistan.

I like it.

The Swazi speech was brief, and talked more about how Swaziland is developing, but needs help, and so do other developing countries. Thanks to countries that are helping.

All in all, I look forward to later speeches, especially the Israeli and Burmese ones.

For some reason the website won't let me watch it. What channel/times are these shown?

For some reason the website won't let me watch it. What channel/times are these shown?

You need RealPlayer to watch them.

It's terrible, but I almost wish I could speak in front of the UN as the leader of HotRodia as I do with the NS UN.

I'd have some equally choice things to say.

Dude, could you find an actual transcript of Ortega's speech, I don't have Realplayer.

Also, this UN Assembly fails because Chavez didn't speak...

You forgot Poland!

You forgot Poland!

Blame Germany?

Blame Germany?

Nah, more likely Belarus.

Are the speeches audio only? All I am getting is audio...

I am hanging out for North Korea and Syria. I would have preferred Putin though.

San Marino (Everybody's favourite country outlines its foreign policy and view of the world)

Why do you call it "everybody's favorite country"? Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

Myanmar (Need I even say why everyone's waiting to see this one?)

Yes, you need say "why everyone's waiting to see this one", because I don't know. What's so special about Myanmar?

Waste of; time
energy
money

Much will be discussed, debated, circumvented and fuck all will happen. For another year.

Are the speeches audio only? All I am getting is audio...

Ahmadinejad's is not. I am getting video on my computer as well as audio. Bush's is showing up on my computer as written text, not audio or video. I don't know about the others.

Waste of; time
energy
money

Much will be discussed, debated, circumvented and fuck all will happen. For another year.
As I always says, the UN can only be as strong as the will of it's members, and in particular it's strongest member the USA.

Yes, you need say "why everyone's waiting to see this one", because I don't know. What's so special about Myanmar?

Enjoying life under that rock of yours then?

San Marino (Everybody's favourite country outlines its foreign policy and view of the world)

My favorite country is Liechtenstein, tyvm. (Well, San Marino is part of the dream to visit all the Euro micronations before I die)

Why do you call it "everybody's favorite country"? Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?



Yes, you need say "why everyone's waiting to see this one", because I don't know. What's so special about Myanmar?

Did you hear about the protests?

Ahmadinejad's is not. I am getting video on my computer as well as audio. Bush's is showing up on my computer as written text, not audio or video. I don't know about the others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm
Here is a video of his speech, the link is under the picture in the above link.

Iran: Ahmadinejad sets out his "solutions" to all the world's "problems"

The quotation marks certainly do belong there. I am currently listening to Ahmadinejad's speech, and so far it has been primarily anti-Semitism.

All that stuff he claims Israel is doing to the Palestinians, is actually in self-defense against aggression and attempted genocide on the part of the Palestinians. You say, "Israel is mistreating the Palestinians and denying them human rights." Well, if the Palestinians would LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE AND STOP TRYING TO KILL THEM, then the Palestinians would not have to endure such harsh treatment; the Palestinians brought 99% of it on themselves.

Also, if Ahmadinejad is an orthodox Muslim, then he's LYING about women; an orthodox Muslim in an Islamic-controlled Church-State has NO respect for women or womanhood, though in the United States he will act like he does, for the sake of not hindering the spread of Islam in the democratic West.

Enjoying life under that rock of yours then?

What rock? What are you talking about?

Did you hear about the protests?

What protests? No, I haven't heard about any protests.

The quotation marks certainly do belong there. I am currently listening to Ahmadinejad's speech, and so far it has been primarily anti-Semitism.

All that stuff he claims Israel is doing to the Palestinians, is actually in self-defense against aggression and attempted genocide on the part of the Palestinians. You say, "Israel is mistreating the Palestinians and denying them human rights." Well, if the Palestinians would LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE AND STOP TRYING TO KILL THEM, then the Palestinians would not have to endure such harsh treatment; the Palestinians brought 99% of it on themselves.

Also, if Ahmadinejad is an orthodox Muslim, then he's LYING about women; an orthodox Muslim in an Islamic-controlled Church-State has NO respect for women or womanhood, though in the United States he will act like he does, for the sake of not hindering the spread of Islam in the democratic West.

Go away MTAE.

Go away MTAE.
Actually, he can stay. He's making 100% sense.

Today
VenezuelaChavez !!!!

FTW :D

Na it's not him unfortunately, it's a foreign minister or something,...What the fuck ???
I want Chavez.. bring chavez

Fucking UN they fail to deliver... again

Chavez !!!!

FTW :D

Na it's not him unfortunately, it's a foreign minister or something, it's a shame though, I was looking forward to more jokes about Bush.

For some reason the website won't let me watch it. What channel/times are these shown?

You can watch them at any time, but you need RealPlayer.

It's terrible, but I almost wish I could speak in front of the UN as the leader of HotRodia as I do with the NS UN.

I'd have some equally choice things to say.

Heh. Wouldn't that be cool. :D

Dude, could you find an actual transcript of Ortega's speech, I don't have Realplayer.

There isn't one. At least not on the UN website. It seems the Nicaraguans delegation didn't provide one.


Also, this UN Assembly fails because Chavez didn't speak...

Indeed. I was rather disappointed about that. :(

Are the speeches audio only? All I am getting is audio...

No, they're video. But it's more or less a continuous shot of the person speaking.

Why do you call it "everybody's favorite country"? Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?


Not at all. As far as I know, everyone genuinely likes San Marino. One of the world's smallest countries, and oldest surviving republic.


Yes, you need say "why everyone's waiting to see this one", because I don't know. What's so special about Myanmar?

The government in Myanmar is currently repressing anti-government, monk-led protest marches. Four dead last time I checked, hundreds of arrests.

Interestingly enough, this was Iran's speech to the UN in 2001, just after 9/11:


STATEMENT BY
His Excellency Seyed Mohammad Khatami
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
The 56th Session of The United Nations General Assembly
New York, 10 November 2001

[...] The commencement of the new century and millennium was regrettably marred by blood and gloom. In 2001, terror and violence persisted and scores of defenseless innocents became victims of the blind hatred and rage of governments and terrorist groups. One of the most brutal and savage crimes of this range was the terrorist attack against American citizens.

The decisive, immediate and unequivocal global condemnation of the terrorist attacks of September 11th represents the emergence of a public attitude and common political will all over the world to counter terrorism in all its manifestations, irrespective of motives, perpetrators or victims. The Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran spoke of "Jihad against this evil phenomenon" so as to highlight the genuine view of Islarn and the Islamic Revolution vis-a-vis terrorism and violence.

Regrettably the expectation of the global community of its political leaders to transform this strong public sentiment to a logical, just and comprehensive response to terrorism where its root causes could be addressed has yet to be met.

[...] The threat of terrorism should not be underestimated, nor should its devastating consequences be measured only in the visible realm of politics. Terrorism cannot be attributed to any religion or nationality; nor can it be eradicated through rage and violence. Terrorism is the chronic menace of our era, rooted in the mentality of violence, the logic of might and the practice of injustice and discrimination. When spirituality, ethics and fairness find no room in the realm of politics, economy and culture, and when discrimination, marginalization, exclusion and application of double standards push justice aside, the world is bound to face alienation, despair, extremism and lawlessness. And in such a climate, terrorism finds a fertile ground for growth.

The disaster in the United States is so tragic and grave that implores all thinkers to engage in deep reflection and dialogue on its real causes. The powerful find the answer in recourse to military revenge, since it calms their anger and that of their compatriots. In this midst, the fact that the first victims of such retribution are defenseless people who have themselves been victims of terrorism and discrimination is often ignored.

The tragic events in the U.S. could not have happened without utilizing modern tools of technology. Technology is the ultimate achievement of instrumental reason, while for many years, our great thinkers have cautioned us to avoid unconditional submission to instrumental reason, warning of the threats and tragedies that it could generate.

On the other hand, some of the great thinkers of our time have ascribed atrocities such as fascism to the reign of mythological speculation. They have attributed the emergence of fascism not to the expansion of rationality but to the evasion of rationality and succumbing to the reign of myth.

Warning about the calamities that are generated by an absolute reign of instrumental reason does not negate rationality and technology or call to new obscurantism or succumbing to mythical speculation. It nevertheless draws attention to the proper share due to rationality and empathy, to mind and heart. Elimination or violation of each leads to catastrophe. It is, therefore, irrelevant what name that catastrophe should assume: religion, race, nationalism or anything else.

In modern cultic ideologies, it is not merely rationality that gets reduced to instrumental reason and thereby is stripped of all its moral and human aspects. Religion, tradition, philosophy and art also descend to the level of satisfying political ends.

One of the most common features of these ideologies, which is regrettably omnipresent, is the glorification of the self and demonization of the opposing groups and ideas. Only through such an approach can one refer in the United States and Europe to Islam - the religion of humanity, compassion and justice - as equal to terrorism or identify the west in parts of the Islamic world as equal to suppression and corruption. Such polarization of the world and human beings would lead to horrifying political and security consequences for the whole world.

The American nation has experienced one of the most brutal forms of terrorism, where the blind hatred of terrorists did not even allow the burned up fractured corpses of the victims of the tragedy to be recovered. Today this nation can be seen alongside other nations, who have suffered from injustice and despotism for years and even centuries.

Today, beyond the rhetoric, one can notice the concordance between the peoples of the United States and Iran, who have experienced earlier the muted yet brutal massacre of chemical weapons. This concord can be further discerned in the hardships of all those refugees and displaced persons who are victims of war, suppression and terrorism -including state terrorism- in Afghanistan and Palestine and those who do not even have the right to return to their homeland.

We should have empathy with the suffering people of our time anywhere: in the occupied Palestine, in the oppressed Afghanistan, in New York or Washington, or in any corner of the globe.

We should reach an appropriate definition for terrorism and make distinction between blind criminal terrorism and the legitimate defense against occupation, violence arid suppression. Based on collective wisdom and international will, we should stand for a deep-rooted continuous struggle against the causes and manifestations of terrorism as well as its bases anywhere in the world. We should be vigilant to avoid the pitfall of fueling rather than suppressing terrorism through unilateral practices stemming from pride and rage. We should avoid expanding terrorism throughout the world in an attempt to suppress one of its bases.


(full text here (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/56/statements/011110iranE.htm))

Yeah it seems Ortega's speech was largely improvised (as was the Cuban representatives - the last bit anyways) due to outrage at Bush's speech early, we'll obviously see more of the same of that from Venezuela and others.

* Looks forward to watching more *

I think it's just as well that Ireland apparently won't be saying anything. Bertie's probably too bust in tribunals anyway.

I think it's just as well that Ireland apparently won't be saying anything. Bertie's probably too bust in tribunals anyway.

All 192 member nations will be saying something, + the Vatican and Palestine.

Ireland will be speaking on October 2nd.

Fiji (Commodore Bainimara, interim military leader, will be seeking international support (http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=71220))


I'm watching (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070928am2.rm?start=00:00:01&end=00:22:39) Bainimarama now. The transcript is here (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/fiji-en.pdf). He's talking about why he removed the government in a coup last december, and is asking the international community to understand the "Fiji context".

Iranian delegate struggles with faulty microphones at the UN (video). (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070928pm4.rm?start=02:18:53&end=02:24:46) Proof of a US conspiracy? :D

I'm watching (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070928am2.rm?start=00:00:01&end=00:22:39) Bainimarama now. The transcript is here (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/fiji-en.pdf). He's talking about why he removed the government in a coup last december, and is asking the international community to understand the "Fiji context".

I just read his speech. He spoke about how Fiji's previous system supported race-based policies, and people normally voted for whoever their tribal leaders told them to. I'm at least pleased by the fact that he didn't try to gloss over the coup. His words are:

I am mindful, as I stand here today in your august presence, that you may see me as a military leader who removed an elected Government. I cannot begrudge that because that is indeed a fact.

I think that the world better keep an eye on him, and make sure that he does not run for office. If he keeps his word, then let him be.

I think that the world better keep an eye on him, and make sure that he does not run for office. If he keeps his word, then let him be.

Before the coup, Bainimarama was highly respected in Fiji as a defender of democracy. As he correctly said in his speech, he played a crucial role in putting an end to the coup in 2000, and restoring democracy.

Of course I can't predict what he's going to do in the long run, but his claim of grievances with Qarase is at least plausible. Qarase's policies were indeed race-based, and Qarase was sympathetic to Speight (the leader of the 2000 coup). Before being elected, Qarase had expressed his doubts about the legitimacy of democracy (like many indigenous Fijian nationalists, he claimed that "one man, one vote" potentially gave too much power to the Indo-Fijian minority). Qarase became the champion of democracy only when it personally suited him.

Bainimarama says he's going to replace the ethnic electoral rolls by a single citizen roll, to do away with race-based politics.

Of the six ASEAN nations that had spoken, three - Thailand (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/thailand-en.pdf), Singapore (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/singapore-eng.pdf), and the Philippines (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/philippines-en.pdf) - touched on the topic of Myanmar. Nothing much, actually, though Thailand, I think, issued a more significant message directed at the Myanmar junta. Both Thailand and the Philippines urged the release of political detainees and the restoration of the democracy...

Dude, could you find an actual transcript of Ortega's speech, I don't have Realplayer.

Also, this UN Assembly fails because Chavez didn't speak...

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I'M SERIOUSLY RUNNING OUT OF ELLIPSES HERE, PEOPLE!

Before the coup, Bainimarama was highly respected in Fiji as a defender of democracy. As he correctly said in his speech, he played a crucial role in putting an end to the coup in 2000, and restoring democracy.

Of course I can't predict what he's going to do in the long run, but his claim of grievances with Qarase is at least plausible. Qarase's policies were indeed race-based, and Qarase was sympathetic to Speight (the leader of the 2000 coup). Before being elected, Qarase had expressed his doubts about the legitimacy of democracy (like many indigenous Fijian nationalists, he claimed that "one man, one vote" potentially gave too much power to the Indo-Fijian minority). Qarase became the champion of democracy only when it personally suited him.

Bainimarama says he's going to replace the ethnic electoral rolls by a single citizen roll, to do away with race-based politics.

In that case, I'm inclined to trust him.

Here's what the representative of Myanmar said about current events in his country:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1982/myanmardz4.png

The full speech can be read here (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/62/2007/pdfs/myanmar-eng.pdf).