There was a surprising vote at the United States Mission to the United Nations. In the UN Security Council resolution on the provision of humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, the majority of deputies voted in favor, while the representative of the United States, Linda Thomas Greenfield, chose to abstain. This rare move raises questions about whether the U.S. representative to the United Nations really has a role to play. Although this resolution is not a large-scale resolution of the final ruling of the "P5", and Greenfield's attitude did not affect the adoption of the resolution, this scene has still become the focus of attention. The vote was recorded on camera and sparked heated discussions online.
People have questioned whether Greenfield is just a politically correct marionette, and it is the white bigwigs behind him who really have the final say. Opinions on Greenfield's abstention were mixed, with some praising her for showing "conscience" and others suspecting that it was not her usual style. This incident has raised questions about the role and role of the U.S. representative to the United Nations. In fact, this UN Security Council resolution on the Gaza Strip is not a large resolution with the final decision of the "P5" and a veto. Judging from the number of votes cast, the attitude of the United States, whether it abstains or is in favor, will not affect the adoption of this draft.
However, the UN Security Council has limited binding power in specific implementation, only a monitoring mechanism, and lacks enforcement force. Therefore, Greenfield's statement did not play a decisive role in the final adoption of the resolution. In the past few years, the ** sent to the United Nations to speak and vote on behalf of the United States often have "politically correct" personas, but what they convey is often the will of the white bigwigs behind the scenes. As a result, Greenfield's performance this time raises questions about the real role of the U.S. representative to the United Nations. Against this backdrop, there has been increased attention and discussion about the role and influence of the U.S. representative to the United Nations.
Overall, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations vote in the U.N. Security Council has raised questions about the role and role of the U.S. representative to the United Nations. Although this resolution is not a large-scale resolution of the final ruling of the "P5", and the attitude of the United States has not affected the adoption of the resolution, Greenfield's statement has still become the focus of attention. It has also sparked discussions about the political correctness and true influence of the U.S. representative to the United Nations. What do we think about and expect from the role and influence of the U.S. representative to the United Nations?Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has become a "man of the blame" in history.
During the decision-making process regarding the war in Iraq, he was forced to provide ** with "good reasons", which were later proven to be false. This article will go into why Powell became a scapegoat and his role in the incident. Back at the beginning of this century, there was a clear divide between the main war faction and ** in the United States. Powell, as a secretary of state who was born as a professional soldier, is considered a representative of the **. However, the internal warring faction has the upper hand, and they hope to solve the Iraqi problem through war. At the same time, the military-industrial complex is also eager to profit from the war, sending a lobby to convince members of Congress and ** to support a war against Iraq.
Given this background, Powell was forced to give a speech at the UN to provide a "good reason" for the war. This speech is considered to be the key to deciding whether or not the war in Iraq will take place. However, these reasons then turned out to be false, which dealt a huge blow to the credibility and image of the United States. Powell's role in this event will be discussed later in the article. Looking back at his memoirs, we can see that he was under tremendous pressure before giving his speech. The CIA director spoke with him for a long time, which forced him to make a decision that seriously damaged his credibility and character. This decision eventually led to his resignation.
Powell has admitted many times since his retirement that the incident has caused him great pain. He realized that when he took that "test tube" to give a speech at the United Nations, he had become a puppet behind the scenes. This fact made him very painful, and he always hoped to be able to wash away this "stain". The article will conclude with a summary of the reasons why Powell became a "man of the backs". First, he was forced to make a false speech as secretary of state, which dealt a huge blow to the credibility and image of the United States. Secondly, he was manipulated by ** and behind the scenes ** in this incident and lost his autonomy. In the end, the incident had a profound impact on Powell's personal reputation, which he has been suffering from.
In my opinion, this incident is not only about Powell's personal story, but also reflects the internal problems of the United States. Transparency and authenticity in decision-making need to be ensured, while protecting those who are forced to take the blame. Only in this way can we maintain the credibility of the country and the reputation of the country. Finally, I would like to ask the reader a question: how do you think the interests of authenticity and protection should be balanced when dealing with similar incidents?Please share your thoughts in the comments. The political career of the U.S. representative to the United Nations, Linda Thomas Greenfield, was full of twists and turns.
After growing up in the apartheid-era South, she was involved in American diplomacy and witnessed the wars and turmoil in Africa. However, as she continued to rise through the ranks, her position seemed to be gradually changing. Greenfield was once seen as a relatively objective politician, but now she is acting more and more like her predecessors who represented the will of the White House and the interests of the military-industrial complex. Recently, however, her actions seem to be a little different. What is the reason for Greenfield's change?Linda Thomas Greenfield was born in 1952, the same age as Vladimir Putin in Russia, and is a product of the apartheid era in the South.
She spent her childhood in Louisiana, the foundation of the far-right Ku Klux Klan. In that era, the status of blacks was extremely low, and racial contradictions were acute. Recalling that time, Greenfield described the evil act of Ku Klux Klan members burning crucifixes in the courtyard and their insults and discrimination against black people. In such an environment, Greenfield attended segregated schools until the early 1960s, when the first black girls entered a white school. However, Greenfield enjoyed the dividends of "racial equality" policies at the college level, gained access to education, and pursued a master's degree at the policy-leaning University of Wisconsin.
This experience shaped her deep understanding of racial equity and fairness, and set the tone for her future political career. After graduating, Greenfield joined the United States*** and was involved in diplomacy under Clinton and Obama. She was stationed in Africa and witnessed first-hand the devastation of the civil wars in Rwanda and Liberia. During the Trump administration, she turned to academia, taught at Bucknell University, and became actively involved in American politics. Although once seen as a relatively objective politician, her position seems to be changing as she continues to rise through the ranks. She has repeatedly made erroneous remarks, accusing China's ethnic and religious policies on Xinjiang-related issues and seriously interfering in China's internal affairs.
Her position on the Ukrainian issue and the Palestinian-Israeli issue is also extremely biased, representing the will of the White House and the interests of the military-industrial complex. Recently, however, her actions seem to be a little different. Recently, Greenfield unexpectedly raised his hand while speaking at the United Nations, which sparked concern and speculation. Does her move mean that she has some new ideas, or has she changed her previous position?Why did her attitude change, and was it affected in any way?Was it a change in the external situation, or was it a reflection of her own experience, or other factors that prompted her to take such an action?
Is there a deeper meaning behind this move, about her personal and the shift in U.S. foreign policy?Will this move affect her future political career and attitude towards foreign affairs?Linda Thomas Greenfield's move has sparked a lot of speculation and left many questions to be solved. Recently, the NBA playoffs once again set off a wave of "stealing the limelight". In addition to the intensity of the game itself, the words and deeds of the players off the field have also become a topic of conversation among the audience. In one game, Warriors player Greenfield tried to steal the show off the court, only to be snatched back by a white female executive behind him.
This incident makes us wonder, is it really necessary to steal the limelight?In the middle of the game, Greenfield tried to show off his skills, and he performed a slam dunk show with great dexterity. However, this action didn't last for two seconds, and was pulled back domineeringly by the obscure white female boss behind her. All Greenfield could do was look back and smile awkwardly. Stealing the limelight is not uncommon in NBA games. Quite a few players try to show themselves as much as possible off the pitch in order to make a lasting impression in the hearts of the fans. But is it really necessary to steal the limelight?
The players have already had ample opportunities to show their quality and charisma on the field, so why put on a meaningless show off the field?In addition to the NBA game, there are also other areas that steal the limelight. For example, in the workplace, some people will try to express themselves as much as possible, hoping to get more attention and recognition. However, this behavior is often perceived as unprofessional and can instead lead to disgust and distrust. In fact, a person's strength and ability are ultimately the key to his success or failure. Grabbing the limelight is just a temporary show-off, and it cannot have a substantial impact on his strength and ability. Therefore, in any field, it is important to focus on strength, not just on the surface of the glamour.
Of course, that's not to say we shouldn't show ourselves. On the contrary, we should show our strength and charm at the right time and in the right way. In NBA games, players can make fans know and like themselves through exciting games and superb skills. In the workplace, we can win the trust and recognition of our colleagues and superiors through serious work and professional attitude. To sum up, stealing the limelight is not a wise choice. We should be based on strength, with a professional attitude and hard work, to win the recognition and respect of others. Such a choice is not only smarter and more sustainable, but also more conducive to our personal growth and professional development.
Finally, I would like to ask you, have you ever stolen the limelight?Do you think it's necessary to steal the limelight?Welcome to leave a message in the comment area to discuss.
What are your thoughts on this matter?Comments are welcome**!