It has been almost two months since the UN General Debate of the 64th session convened, and I believe ample time has passed to allow the revisit and analysis of the most controversial speech.
Muammar Al-Gaddafi (Colonel Qadhafi), the de facto Leader and Guide to the Revolution in Libya, upon his return from a 40-year hiatus gave one of the most discombobulated, incoherent, gibberish, and, at times, misguided rant to the General Assembly (GA). Yet, despite all his writing failures, his speech had reason, knowledge, and critical arguments to which the world ought to take note. His disastrous speech was not a result of the content, for he only sought to re-examine a long debated issue of the reformation of UN Security Council. His offense was tackling that critical issue through a poor presentation.
In his speech, Gaddafi made four arguments on the need for Security Council Reformation. He started out by illustrating the incongruence of the Charter’s Preamble to the Articles and Provisions. He made the assertion that the Preamble, created by the three allied countries -- Great Britain, Russia and United States -- was ideal in certifying peace, stability, equality, and advancement. Nevertheless, the deferred creation of the subsequent articles and provision by the allies resulted in the present inconsistency of the UN Charter.
One example presented by Gaddafi was the bestowment of the veto power to the five permanent members of Security Council. He believed that it completely contradicted the second point under the Determination of Preamble which states “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” For this reason Gaddafi chose ‘neither to accept nor recognize [the Charter].’” His argument, though presented poorly, is one of great importance. On one hand, people believe that the principle of equality is achieved through the structure of the GA, and on the other hand, some argue that the very presence of a selective veto power illustrates the inequality.
His second point was in regards to the employment of military force. He stated that under the Preamble, military force would only be used to attain the common interest of the organization and those forces used would be employed by the organization. If one nation were to take up cause with another, dismissing proper procedure, the UN would take actions to address it accordingly. Some countries with the veto powers have, in the past, breached the clause, yet there were no sanctions or actions taken to stop them. He made no particular reference, but one can tell he had the U.S. invasion of Iraq in mind. I agree with him on this point, because if it was any other country, specifically a third world country, there would be such strict sanctions imposed statingt that it would have to withdraw to save its state.
His third point was the necessary reforms that need to be implemented to rectify the long injustice and failure of the current structure of the Security Council. He suggested that membership be close and the Security Council not be expanded because it will create more super powers. Rather, each continent should be represented through a union that embodies each state. I disagree with the closure of further membership, for the UN nation state should be representative of the current world. Thus, having all the members represented in the GA, as well as each continent in the Security Council, will certainly move the reformation in the right direction.
The last point, which I found to be the most humorous and absurd, even in the gravity of the topic, was the compensation of $77.7 trillion for the African Continent. Gaddafi believed that the gold and minerals that were robbed from the African continent made the Western world so financially stable. Thus, the African continent needs to be compensated. I agree with the claim that the Western world did and continues to benefitsfrom the riches it took from Africa, but to go as far as to demand a monetary fund is a bit much. I think if any compensation should be made, it should be to interact with the Africans as equals, stop taking advantage of the continent, and create a mutual relationship. The simple act of giving money will neither help rectify past injustices nor solve current struggles for longevity, corruption, greed, and animosity, which will ultimately result in war. On a good note, his request is not likely to come true.
It is important to note that all these points were derived amidst a very distorted, perplexed, and gibberish speech. Had it not been for my interest in the reformation of the Security Council, I would have not taken the time to decipher it. He is the poster child for the argument of presentation vs. message. Many people believe that message is far more important than presentation in a work of literature, because regardless of the structure, the power of the content cannot be undermined. But, after semesters of using the Writing Center and seeing the benefits of presentation, I beg to disagree. A message can be powerful, but it is the proper use of words, imagery, symbolism, punctuation (in his case, rhetorical devices) that convey the power. There are very few people, specifically professors, who will take the time to decipher through one’s paper to get to the message hidden beneath the plethora of grammatical errors. This applies in the real world as well. Many people viewed Gaddafi’s speech as ranting, blabbering, and unintelligent and did not look closely at the message he was tyring to convey. Of course the poor translation played a part, but even in its optimal function, Qadhafi was all over the place. Had he perhaps used a writing facility, such as the Writing Center, his speech would have received more favorable criticism.
300 Washington Avenue, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 | 410-778-2800 | 800-422-1782