Connect with us

Opinion

‘Your countries are going to hell’: Trump’s UN speech explained by an expert

Read more on post.

The assembled United Nations dignitaries gave Donald Trump 13 seconds of applause as he approached the podium for his address to the 80th anniversary general debate on September 23. They clapped for 20 seconds when he finished speaking.

In between, having been asked to confine his remarks to 15 minutes (like all other speakers), the US president gave the room a lengthy address that lasted 57 minutes. It veered from the many shortcomings of the previous US administrations, to why UN migration policies were ruining the world, to the climate change “con job”, to a warning to the assembled leaders that “your countries are going to hell”.

At points in between, Trump congratulated himself, for turning the US into the “hottest country anywhere in the world”, for repelling a “colossal invasion” of migrants at America’s southern border and for ending seven wars – for which he repeated his line that he should have been given the Nobel peace prize.

He also savaged the UN, which he said “did not even try to help in any” of the conflicts. “The UN is such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.” He added: “Empty words don’t solve war.”

Questioning whether the UN could play a productive role, Trump offered “the hand of American leadership and friendship to any nation in this assembly that is willing to join us in forging a safer, more prosperous world”. In other words, UN-led multilateralism is out, to be replaced, perhaps, by a series of bilateral relationships dominated by the US.

Eight decades after its founding in the wake of the second world war, it is not a good time for the UN. It is currently mired in a budget crisis: US$2.4 billion (£1.77 billion) in unpaid dues from member states against an overall budget of US$3.5 billion for 2025. Of this, the US owes the most, about US$1.5 billion.

The Trump administration is applying a much-reduced budget that includes zero funding for UN peacekeeping operations. This decision has been made despite the fact that the US has an obligation to pay at least one-quarter of the UN’s peacekeeping costs. It has also paused most other funding to the body.

Trump’s speech to the United Nations in full.

Trump’s speech did not shy away from other issues of critical importance. He highlighted the need to “stop the war” in Gaza and negotiate peace. He also chastised Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. But his views on these conflicts were largely aimed at individual states as opposed to the UN – and multilateralism – in general.

When it came to Gaza, he was critical of the states that “unilaterally” recognised Palestinian statehood. Talking about Ukraine, Trump criticised European states for not cutting off purchases of Russian energy and energy products. The UN, and its efforts in addressing these catastrophic situations, was not mentioned.

Migration and climate

But Trump was most savage when it came to migration. He opened his section on migration by stating that “your countries are being ruined”, stating: “The United Nations is funding an assault on western countries and their borders.” Claiming that the UN provides cash assistance towards migrants journeying to the US, Trump then stated: “The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them.”

The rest of his discussion on migration was aimed at Europe. Within that he offered unsubstantiated claims about London – with whose mayor, Sadiq Khan, he has a longstanding disagreement: “Now they want to go to sharia law” he said.

His language here will (rightly) cause considerable concern for many. It may reflect his belief in the role of sovereign borders, particularly in the US. But the attachment – in particular with regards to European states – of the idea of sovereignty to a way of life that is somehow endangered by migration is one which could embolden anti-migrant sentiment on a global level.

The US president prepares to address the UN general assembly.
The US president prepares to address the UN general assembly.
EPA/Lukas Coch

Trump’s views on climate change will also grab headlines. Interestingly though, given his other criticisms of the UN, while he called climate science and the idea of man-made global warming “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”, his scorn wasn’t particularly aimed at the UN.

Granted, the UN has been in the driving seat for many of the steps taken in attempting to tackle the climate crisis – so by implication, the UN was in the US president’s sights. But he instead he took the opportunity to direct his slurs towards China which – he said – builds wind turbines “and they send them all over the world but they barely use them”.

So what can be taken from this? It may not have been a worst-case scenario for those who support international cooperation. He didn’t explicitly pull the US out of any other UN programmes.

But there’s very little to take reassurance from a multilateral perspective when viewing Trump’s 57 minutes at the lectern. In his view, the UN is not up to speed with attempts to build peace, it doesn’t function properly, it’s secondary to bilateral efforts, and – when it comes to the US – it has supported an “invasion” by migrants.

And, reading between the lines, Trump’s perspectives on sovereignty, climate change and migration may embolden other political leaders who want to push similar agendas. It has the danger of going beyond rhetoric.

The US president’s disdain for multilateralism and the UN system may mean other members reprioritise their budgets, cutting funding still further. This would further fracture a UN system which is already seriously under pressure.

Opinion

The Irish Times view on presidential nominations: Too narrow a field

Published

on

Read more on post.

Only a few days ago, it still seemed possible that voters would have a choice of up to six candidates in next month’s presidential election. But when nominations closed at noon on Wednesday, only three names had made it on to the ballot paper. That reflected the narrowing that had taken place over the previous four days.

First, Sinn Féin announced that it would be supporting Catherine Connolly rather than putting forward a candidate of its own. That was followed by businessman Gareth Sheridan’s failure to secure the requisite support from local authorities.

There was a flurry of excitement in the final hours before nominations closed, as Maria Steen edged ever closer to the 20 signatures from members of the Oireachtas which the Constitution requires. But the conservative campaigner ultimately fell two names short.

As a result, the electorate now finds itself presented with the smallest field of candidates since the presidential election of 1990.

That is regrettable. A broader, more varied choice would surely have led to a more vigorous and wide-ranging debate, which in turn would have stimulated public interest and potentially increased voter turnout.

Steen’s supporters have been quick to blame her failure to secure a nomination on the main political parties, whom they accuse of shutting down democratic choice.

The charge is unfounded; between them, Connolly, Jim Gavin and Heather Humphreys command the support of nearly every party in the Oireachtas – almost 85 per cent of its members. The suggestion that parties with candidates in the field should ease the path of potential opponents reached absurd levels on Tuesday when it was suggested that Connolly herself might sign Steen’s nomination papers.

It should not shock anyone that political parties pursue their own electoral advantage in order to achieve the objectives they were set out up to accomplish. That, after all, is the proposition they presented to their voters.

Where Ireland differs from most of its international counterparts is in the number of Independents it elects. As a result, there were more than enough Independent TDs and Senators available to ensure Steen’s nomination. They chose not to do so, presumably for a variety of different reasons. That is why she did not succeed.

The fact that she came so close is largely due to the efforts of Peadar Tóibín, leader of Aontú, one of the smallest parties in the Oireachtas. In the end, he fell short, in part because the campaign itself began too late and ran out of time.

But there are lessons here for those who believe Irish political discourse is too narrow and that some voices are excluded. The remedy to that lies not in the kindness of opponents but in effective, organised and sustained political work.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Irish Times view on textile waste: what a load of rubbish

Published

on

Read more on post.

Ireland is the second largest producer of textile waste per head in Europe, second only to Belgium. We each consume 53kg of textiles each year – more than double the European average. To put the figure in context, a T-shirt weighs between 100 and 250 grams, and a winter duvet can weigh 3 kg.

It’s a lot of clothes, bedding and curtains to throw out and most of it goes in the bin, with only a third being recycled via clothes banks and charity shops. Given the dubious distinction of being one of the worst offenders when it comes to textile waste you might assume that we would quickly and wholeheartedly embrace new rules to reduce textile waste adopted by the European Parliament earlier this month.

Under the new directive, producers who make textiles available in the EU will have to cover the cost of their collection, sorting and recycling. The rules will apply to all producers, including online sellers, irrespective of whether they are established in an EU country or outside it.

The measures will be implemented through a producer responsibility scheme similar to the Re-turn system for drink bottles and cans set up by packaging and drinks companies.

Member states have 30 months from the directive’s entry into force to establish a scheme. There is, of course, no reason why it cannot be done sooner and every reason why it should be.

But if the Re-turn scheme is any guide, the Government will be in no rush when it finds itself caught between industry lobbying and fears the measure may push up prices.

The Single Use Plastic directive came into effect in 2019 but the Irish deposit-based scheme for recycling drink bottles and cans launched in February 2024. Many other European countries brought them in 20 years ago.

Despite initial teething problems, the Re-turn scheme has been supported by the public and has helped the industry meet its EU-mandated recycling targets. There is no reason to believe consumers will not support a textile recycling scheme sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading

Opinion

High seas drama: Áine Ryan on a Tory Island ferry crossing she would rather forget

Published

on

Read more on post.

It’s hard to believe it is 30 years since we were weather-bound on Tory Island. It was mid-August 1995 and a group of us from a less exposed island down the coast had decided to explore this outpost off Donegal. Part of the attraction was that it still boasted a monarchical regime whose king may not have worn a crown but boy could Patsy Dan Rodgers, the King of Tory, make music and talk the talk.

Of course, we had an anointed leader of our community with us too: The Priesht, who for the sake of diplomacy shall remain anonymous due to certain shenanigans on the deck of the boat on our return journey to Magheroarty.

The memory of that summer sojourn and the number of 16-hand reels and singing sessions until dawn came bouncing back during a recent rocky August voyage from Clare Island, my home for a time.

Ironically it happened to be on the same ferry, the Tormore, which was the Tory ferry in the mid-1990s but is now among the fleet of ferries servicing the Co Mayo island.

It was two days after Storm Floris swept in across the horizon and the seas were still recovering from her wrath. No surprise that the unseasonable weather had caused campers to run for shelter, day-trippers to cancel their planned voyages, islanders to batten down the hatches and boatmen to tighten their ropes and check their anchorages.

It also ensured that this long-time nervous sailor was hyper-vigilant of the trajectory of the storm as I obsessively checked all the apps from Wind Guru to Magicseaweed and, of course, our very own Met Éireann.

From predators of pests to a calm presence on warships, cats have done some serviceOpens in new window ]

Two days later I was armed in rain gear and a look of terror on my face as I boarded the ferry with the tail end of Floris still blowing gusts of up to 65km/h.

As always, in rough sea conditions, I am more than happy to make a holy show of myself. So on this occasion I sat inside the door of the cabin, threw my arms over the back of the seat in front of me, bent my head, closed my eyes and started box-breathing.

The journey from Clare Island to the mainland is usually about 30 minutes but on occasions when the sea is lumpy and the wind is belligerent, the wise skippers “tack” into the wind or run from it, meaning the voyage is a little longer.

Every 10 minutes or so I rose from my crouched position and peered out the porthole to check for the welcome sight of land. The relief was short-lived when I finally saw the outline of the cliffs which frame Roonagh.

Suddenly, our craft slowed down and drew to a halt. Apparently, there was swell rolling into the little harbour and another island ferry, the Clew Bay Queen, was inside tied up to the pier. For safety, we needed to wait outside until she exited.

Lord almighty but that was a long 15 minutes as the Tormore’s engines revved and screeched and rocked and rolled under the cliffs awaiting a safe passage inside to the pier.

To make matters worse, what do you think swam across my memory but the trauma of that very rough voyage from Tory?

Unlike Clare Island, with its big hill, An Cnoc Mór, Tory is low-lying, nine miles off the coast and has little shelter from the whims of the ocean.

Saving the best for last: How the Making In symposium left an indelible markOpens in new window ]

Back in August 1995 when the winds suddenly blew up and word spread about the ferry being cancelled, we gave little thought to it. The craic was too good. There was another night of madness to be enjoyed.

However, when bleary-eyed and sleep-deprived the following morning we were told the Tormore would be departing for the mainland an hour later, it was a whole different story.

Ironically, it was us islanders who were the worst passengers. Being seasoned sailors, it must have been the experience of an ocean which appeared to have a very different modus operandi when attacking our northern coastline with strong winds. Certainly the other tourists who knew little about the Atlantic’s vagaries appeared more sane than our gang.

Turns out it wasn’t a very good idea for The Priesht to have indulged in a full Irish breakfast. Half way across he provided an entertaining spectacle of kneeling on the deck, vomiting into a bucket while one of our group threw a towel over his head, for modesty’s sake.

Every now and then he’d peep out from under his cowl and cause much mirth, shouting: “Well, that’s the fried egg” and “Here comes the black pudding.”

Three decades later with my stomach hovering in my throat, my sense of relief was visceral as our ferry turned into the pier and the crew tied its ropes.

Afterwards, I stood overlooking the pier and watched the Tormore bounce back out of the harbour with her new load of passengers. This sturdy craft has carried islanders and visitors along the wild west coast in all sorts of weather but for this seafarer the Beaufort scale must be in a benevolent mood with high pressure dominating and I don’t mean my heart rate.

Continue Reading

Trending