This morning Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, spoke at the UN. He made no bones about calling George W. Bush, President of the USA the devil, and calling out to the rest of the world to reject American attempts at hegemony and assert themselves. You can read a transcript here: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
This speech is a must-read. While Pierrot in unaware of its' significance in terms of UN history it will most certainly prove to be one of the defining moments of that organization going into the 21st Century. I am personally a fan of Mr. Chavez, not only for his flamboyant rhetoric that could make even an irrationalist such as Pierrot proud, but for his tenacious ability to survive and thrive in a capitalist world without sacrificing the interests of his people who, with the exception of the deposed elites, are utterly and completely committed to his Bolivarean regime. Very rarely are countries transformed in the way Chavez has changed Venezuela during his tenure, and judging from the loud applause his speech received (it's all bullshit) one can always hope that the non-aligned will grow to include any number of those third world countries dispossessed by the global economy and develop on their own terms. Particularly I was struck by his attack on the American idea of imposing democracy from above, as it were. This reminds me of a sentiment of deTocqueville's that I came across once, if memory serves me correctly, in regards of the nascent USA: "A people deserves the government they have." I was thinking of this when looking on the troubles facing the new Iraqi democracy and the people ruled thereby. How could they want liberal democracy, a concept developed in the Western world which is completely alien to the Iraqi people and an utterly inorganic imposition of the West, read the USA. This may sound conservative but look at the rough road that the definitive Western democracies travelled: Britain, centuries of gradual debate and occasional violence as ancient tribal insititutions gradually evolved into a Parliamentary system that threatens the monarchical aspect that makes it unique, and the USA, where a people committed to their own, albeit initially racist version of equality, fought a long and bloody war to assert these principles. Iraq? They had no real template for democracy, and if the people really wanted it, they would have deposed Saddam themselves. Observe the sudden, revolutionary transcription of democracy across France which resulted in the terror and a century and a half of violent oscillation between weak democracies and imperial dictatorships. The point being: Chavez's claim that the USA doesn't necessarily know what is best for everyone else in the world is dead on, and they should stand up for themselves as best they can within the somewhat outmoded UN model. Food for thought: Chavez reiterated Ahmadinejad's point about the obsoleteness of the UN. Ahmadinejad the Iranian president described the UN along these lines: why should we be forced to work within a system that is a sixty year old relic of WWII. To him I would say, why should your people be forced to live within a system of sharia law roughly 1400 years old, which includes somewhat unrealistic references to warriors on flying horses?