Beyond the first sentence

It's well known that President Bush is one of the most anti-UN leaders in the world, though his administration is not the only ones taking cheap shots at the organization: Bush buddy Hugo Chavez got in some jabs of his own.

Despite this emnity, Bush spoke to the international body earlier this week. It was a typical Bush speech. Everything was divided neatly into good and evil, black and white. Like most Bush addresses, it was compelling, provided you didn't actually think too hard about it or analyze the details.

In the speech, he talked mentioned the usual themes. He talked about the 'hopeful world' in which 'the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.' Odd comments from someone whose policies achieve the exact opposite.

He pegged Afghanistan as part of the Middle East. But as we know, details are not his strong suit.

He said: Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day.

He's absolutely right. Yet in the same speech, he praised dictatorial Egypt, where there's been a state of emergency for the last 25 years, and medieval Saudi Arabia as an agents of change. These two American allies, perhaps more than any other countries in the Middle East, exemplify the 'dismal choice' described by the president.

Like most Bush foreign policy speeches, this one was riddled with far more contradictions than I have time to detail. "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen," was the most laughable. When have his actions ever demonstrated belief in that principle?

But one comment was particularly audacious.

The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world."

For Bush to invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is galling, even by his standards.

But since he's not a details guy, perhaps the president didn't read much beyond the first sentence of the Universal Declaration, but you think he might've noticed the second: Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.

Or the fourth: Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.

Because if he had read beyond the preamble, he might've noted:

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11: (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Or perhaps, like the Geneva Convention, Bush thinks the Universal Declaration only applies to everyone else.