Obama’s UN Gambit. King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body.

Anne Bayefsky says that Obama is looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, so he has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, Obama will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American politician has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi -- who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right -- will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of "post-racial" scapegoating will pale by comparison.

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. Obama didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda -- as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2nd, at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: "The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries."

This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features. First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues. While "non-proliferation" is mentioned, "disarmament" is not. Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation "forecasting the Council’s program of work" for the month of September -- based on prior activities and requests -- lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament. But in light of Obama’s wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry "maintenance of international peace and security." The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states.

This is no trivial technicality. The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate -- those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his "beer summit" technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: "Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them."

At Ambassador Rice’s news briefing, she gave "an overview of the principal important meetings" to be held in September on her watch. After finishing the list of subjects without mentioning Iran or North Korea, she added: "So those are the highlights. We also have . . . three sanctions regimes that are up for regular review, chaired by the heads of the sanctions committees. We have Sudan, Iran and North Korea, and these are, I expect, likely to be uneventful and routine considerations of these various regimes."

Even hard-boiled UN correspondents were surprised. Rice was asked to explain how the recent capture by the United Arab Emirates of containers of ammunition en route to Iran from North Korea could be construed as "uneventful and routine." Her answer highlights the administration’s delinquency: "We are simply receiving . . . a regularly scheduled update.... This is not an opportunity to review or revisit the nature of either of those regimes."

A brutalized Iranian population, yearning for democracy, has repeatedly been met by nothing but sad faces from this administration. An Iranian president installed by treachery has been legitimized by American recognition of his government, a decision that has sidelined other eminently justifiable alternatives. The leaders of this state sponsor of terrorism aim to annihilate the Jewish state and are on the verge of acquiring the means to do so. But instead of making the isolation and delegitimation of Iran the top priority for America’s turn at the council presidency, the Obama administration has taken Iran off the table at precisely the time when top decision-makers will be present.

The administration’s zeal for the front-page photo-op on September 25’s New York Times has now become a scramble to manufacture an "outcome" for the session. Obama’s idea for a glorious finish was described by Ambassador Rice as some kind of joint statement declaring in part "that we are united in support for effective steps to ensure nuclear nonproliferation."

Such a result would be breathtaking -- for the audacity of claiming exactly the opposite of what it really represents. Even allied council members France and the United Kingdom are reported to be very unhappy with Obama’s no-names strategy for his September rollout.

Far from bolstering his flagging image, Obama’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality.

One has to remember that Obama fancies himself an expert on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. Obama's Columbia senior year's thesis -- missing, of course -- was about nuclear disarmament.

Sounds to me as though this is the beginning of Obama's plan, outlined in this video, to disarm America.

I didn't know anything about this, but the blogger is correct; here's the Voice of America announcement from September 2, 2009:

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations
02 September 2009

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.
September is a traditionally busy month at the United Nations because it is when the world's leaders convene for the annual debate in the U.N. General Assembly.
This year, the U.S. presidency of the Security Council happens to coincide with this and offers the opportunity for important meetings at the highest levels.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice told reporters on Wednesday that the highlight of the U.S. presidency will be a summit-level Security Council meeting on nuclear non-proliferation. It is scheduled to be held on September 24 and will be chaired by President Obama - the first time a U.S. president has led a Security Council meeting.
"This session will focus on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any particular countries. Key areas to be highlighted will include arms control and nuclear disarmament, and strengthening the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] regime, and denying and disrupting trafficking in and the securing of nuclear materials," she said.
Ambassador Rice said she expects a large number, if not all, of the 15 Security Council members to be represented at the head of state or government level. This would include Libyan leader, Moammar Gadhafi whose country holds a non-permanent seat on the council.
Mr. Gadhafi, a controversial figure, has come under international criticism recently for the hero's welcome in Libya of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi who was released from a U.K. prison because he is dying from cancer.
Ambassador Rice said "virtually every American" has been offended by the reception Megrahi received in his homeland.
"How President Gadhafi chooses to comport himself when he attends the General Assembly and the Security Council in New York has the potential either to further aggravate those feelings and emotions or not," she said.
In addition to the non-proliferation summit, Rice confirmed that President Obama will address the opening session of a climate change summit to be convened by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on September 22.
In keeping with U.N. tradition, the U.S. president will address the General Assembly on the first day of its annual debate, on September 23. All in all, President Obama is expected to spend three days at the United Nations.
On the Security Council's regular program of work this month will be a debate on the U.N.'s peacekeeping mission in Haiti. Its mandate is due to expire next month, but it is expected to be renewed.
Earlier this year, Secretary-General Ban appointed former U.S. President Bill Clinton as his special envoy for Haiti, and Ambassador Rice announced that Mr. Clinton would attend next week's debate.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also be at the U.N. this month, attending a Security Council session expected to adopt a resolution expanding the protection of women in conflict zones.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.