Photo Credit: Stan Honda/AFP
Today Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, the leader of Libya, delivered to the United Nations General Assembly what might be called a diatribe and can definitely be deemed a rambling and unexpected speech. Speaking for 100 minutes–a huge overshooting of his alloted 15 minutes–he managed to speak truth to power and mix in a healthy dose of gibberish at the same time. The UK Telegraph captures the strange dynamic he achieved with this description:
“Reading from a sheaf of handwritten notes, he touched not only on Israel and the Taliban but also on swine flu and the US invasion of Grenada.”
He did indeed. Introduced as “the king of kings of Africa,” Qaddafi joined previous heads of state in breaking UN tradition to exceed the designated speech time limit, and to use the podium to criticize instead of to employ orthodox diplomatic language. Below are some highlights from his speech and an analysis of which part is an important human rights point, and which part is outlandish to the point that it undermines his valid considerations. Unfortunately, the excellent points get lost in the eccentricity of Qaddafi’s presentation and the strangeness of his many other points. Still, many of them cannot be dismissed.
“Israstine.” Calling attention to the continuing violence that defines the Israel-Palestine conflict: important and necessary, especially given recent reports on human rights abuses from both sides and continued disagreement on the Israeli expansion of settlements. Feeling a need to give a name to the State he desires to see constitute a one-state solution: laughable. And yet, to play devil’s advocate, it is hard to see exactly what he meant when we can only read excerpts from his speech as reported in the news. In a coherent and persuasive Op-Ed on the topic of a one-state solution in the New York Times on January 21, 2009, Qaddafi made very salient points about why a two-state solution would present both a security threat to Israel and fail to resolve the Palestinian refugee crisis; in this op-ed he used “Israstine” as a semantic device only once and only after laying out his argument. Taken out of context the idea of naming this mythical/hypothetical state seems ridiculous, but if we read his op-ed from January 21 it takes on new meaning. Perhaps we are robbed of the true presentation by virtue of having only excerpts and commentary to rely on.
Demanding an African Seat on the Security Council: And to this we should respond–why not? Qaddafi is not the first person to call for a change to the power structure of the Security Council so that it more accurately maps to the world’s current political arrangements. News outlets have made much of Qaddafi’s dress when he made his speech, including the fact that he was wearing a large pin of Africa. Similar comments are not made about American politicians wearing American flag pins, but then it is de rigueur to wear your nationality on your sleeve, but pan-regionalism is not so popular, nor so common, nor particularly supported. Comparing the Security Council to a feudal system was perhaps a bit much; calling it a “terror council” certainly was. Neither point needed to be made to express the–clearly true–point that the Security Council is inherently imbalanced in maintaining the position of the permanent five powers from the Cold War founding of the UN. But upon peppering his speech with statements about moving the UN to Libya to prevent jetlag, he suddenly reminds people of why some might not wish to cede power to governments such as his by disturbing the current Security Council arrangements.
Criticizing the United Nations Charter: Certainly anyone and everyone is in a position to criticize it, constructively one hopes, as it is the current foundation for many modern human rights texts. Tearing up the document and stating that he does not recognize its authority: not particularly constructive nor fitting to the setting.
Calling for Investigations into the Major Wars Since the UN Was Founded: On its face there is nothing wrong with this proposal. It assumes, however, that there are secret things that we have yet to find out about the causes of or practices during these wars. Perhaps this is the case. Certainly we still don’t know everything that has gone or or is going on in current conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But when presented the way it was, including alongside calls for investigations into the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Kennedy, it begins to sound like a conspiracy theory. Here again, perhaps the presentation is undermining the point. If the point is that the UN could improve its ability to reign in the belligerence of some of its leading members, than perhaps the point stands.
In short, we can’t simply dismiss Qaddafi’s speech on the grounds that it was at points ridiculous or because we find him ridiculous in his personal style. It also seems that what is usually a boring and ill-attended affair has, because of the eccentricity with which the speech was presented, now become an excellent jumping off point for humorous recounts. Also too hard to dismiss are the devices, often highly racialized, that the media and critics use to lampoon him and turn his messages into jokes. One can’t help but notice the special focus that people pay to Qaddafi’s “traditional” dress and “traditional” request to sleep in a bedouin tent. As mentioned before, not a single commentator misses pointing out his Africa pin; conversely, when President Obama does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel he is criticized. No one would dare question why a leader is wearing a “traditional” western business suit or why they are continuing the “tradition” of sleeping in a hotel while traveling abroad.
Acts such as wearing traditional dress and requesting a bedouin tent could be written off as merely the disingenuous tactics of a dictator, gimmicks devoid of any real cultural content. And yet, like other things that Qaddafi says, they can’t be so easily discounted. It is in their quick dismissal that another error is committed, that of seizing upon difference and a break from protocol as an excuse to ignore the content of the gesture or of the message. He may be eccentric, but that’s not really the point; nor is it impossible for a person with an imperfect or negative record to make valid criticisms of other leaders.
One thing is for sure, though: it was certainly a more interesting day at the UN than had been expected.
