Same old U.N.: 'Progress' & tyranny
Looking ahead to the new year with much of the same old rhetoric, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in remarks to the General Assembly, did make one point of curious context: To shape the future, Turtle Bay must throw off the “brake on our common progress: the tyranny of the status quo.”
But to which “status quo” is he referring? Is it the tyranny of member nations that thwart liberty and freedom in their countries and abroad?
Or is it the status quo of terrorists, who just days before Mr. Ban's remarks seized a BP gas field in Algeria, resulting in the death of at least 37 foreign workers? This, amid growing concern that al-Qaida and its jihadist affiliates will turn parts of northern and western Africa into regions where no Westerners dare to venture.
Or could conceivably it be the status quo of the U.S., Israel and like-minded, freedom-cherishing nations that haven't rolled over on U.N. diktats or relinquished their sovereignty?
Ban stressed that now is not the time for business as usual. Yet he told The Associated Press that an old standby, a climate-change deal, the holy grail of U.N. wealth-redistribution schemes, is among his top priorities: “I will do my best to mobilize the political will and resources so that the member states can agree to a new legally binding global agreement on climate change.”
Most troubling is that the same science-challenged vision is shared in the second-term agenda of President Barack Obama.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- An NLRB ambush
- Season of giving: A deserving recipient
- The Uber downside: Tracking matters
- The gift
- Election 2015: Local leaders needed
- Easy-money mortgages: Not worth the risk
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket