The Speech That Does Not Represent Us

A critique of the message delivered before the international forum, its silences, ideological contradictions, and distance from the national reality.

THE SPEECH
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

Fifty years ago, a character appeared before the UN to deliver a speech that would become memorable by appealing to emotional intelligence.
Mario Moreno (Cantinflas) gave the “erudite” diplomats a verbal thrashing over how far removed they were from human reality.
These days we have been hearing improvised or read speeches, whose belligerent or useless tone is far removed from that charming “Minister.”
After gathering the “leaders” of all parties with the hypothetical intention of preparing a speech that would represent us, another character, who in reality needed a photo, received proposals outside the political boundaries permitted by his ideological restrictions, and stood before a nonexistent Assembly to deliver his speech.

THE SPEECH THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT US
There are moments in the institutional life of a nation when the use of the public word ceases to be a tool of legitimate representation and becomes an affront to the intelligence of its people.
The call to the leaders of the political system to articulate a speech before the world ended in a resounding conceptual, moral, and diplomatic failure.
What was delivered instead of a message that respected the stature of the national leadership that preceded it was a string of platitudes, snubs, and militant slogans, as shameful as they were alien to the sentiments of true Orientales.
The speech had the kindness of being read, to the satisfaction not of the few lackeys present, weary of the practice of diction, but of us, spared the traditional ambiguity of not having interpreted it in all the majesty of its tawdry ideologisms.
Everything that was pompously put forward in an attempt to follow the original plan was a great lie. An absolute fraud to take for granted institutional and social realities that collide head-on with the harsh international truth, and the sad reality of a country lacking a government, which deserved to be better represented.

The weight of silence about the true protagonists and international fallacies
The scribbler and his interpreter spoke generically about war zones without ever mentioning those originally responsible for the belligerence, practitioners of terror.
About peacekeeping missions, without directly mentioning the military personnel whom he sends to put their bodies and lives on the line in the most inhospitable corners of the planet, to defend “peace.” That elusive utopia which the international Organization, which fails in its obligation to stop abuses against its peoples for decades, does not fulfill; and does not even guarantee soldiers escape routes at the worst moments.
He dared to speak of “negotiating peace” while taking an ideological position in favor of those responsible. Emphasizing the right of peoples to that supreme good, while cynically ignoring the dictators, terrorists, exterminators of those same nations; exploiters who do not allow citizens to express their will.
In this conceptual disorder, he confused staggering from one side to another while embracing thieves with a vocation for negotiation. Improvising generalities while concealing outrages, in the absolute absence of a serious and responsible diplomatic strategy.
Even more serious is the cynical contrast of pontificating about rights, confusing them with those of dictators, while flagrantly omitting the fact that our land receives thousands of expatriates who escaped, risking their lives, from those nefarious dictatorships that took their homeland from them. Heirs to others from the twentieth century, which caused holocausts costing millions of lives by applying the same totalitarian recipes.
Along the same lines, multilateralism was praised while the painful structural truth of the failure of the international organizations that should have led it was silenced. Bureaucrats enriched at the expense of those peoples whose oppression they ignore or, worse, prolong while turning their backs on their founding obligations.
All this is happening while we continue without a clear course of belonging to traditional values in defense of interests essential to the country. He took the wrong path in the global concert, diluting our historic sovereign integration aligned with free peoples.

Social disconnection and the true internal blockade
The deception was not limited to the external sphere; it struck those at home harshly. It painted a country that does not exist.
It deliberately omitted our poor, informal workers driven into that condition, deliberately left outside the right to work by the eternal owners of the unions; those who raise their voices about the rights of those who pay for their good life, when in reality they live at their expense and at the expense of others.
He offered no hope by reading like a parrot that we are a country fighting poverty; when in reality, we are shutting down the port, closing businesses, and preventing economic and social growth.
The photos embracing those who abuse power fabricated, prior to the speech, a coordinated international action, a pseudo state policy that is nothing more than an unbearable lie of alignment with the worst.
Faced with this reality, it becomes evident that the “blockade” we face, together with other suffering peoples, does not come from outside; but from the authoritarians, mafiosi, and thieves who seize the levers of power. Or from their accomplices, who submissively support them, incapable of expressing a criterion of their own.
That internal and international siege corrupts democratic institutions and suffocates the future of honest citizens.

The ideological imposture before the international forum
Standing before four indifferent listeners—who were not even paying attention to the reading—to speak of multilateralism, while insisting on belonging to an outdated ideological front that has always fought against democratic institutions is, in addition to lying, to cast old, empty narratives into a forum that should defend without restrictions the rights and freedoms of those who freely choose their future, their destiny.
It is an unacceptable contradiction to tolerate a militant corporate association whose priority is to change the system that reduced hunger, improved quality of life, and allows alternation in government, for those who insist on taking possession of power to design, at their whim, a divided, belligerent, mafia-ridden, and totalitarian society at their service.
If such a project of institutional demolition is in open retreat, it is solely because of the firm resistance of more than half of the country’s voters.
Today, those who participate in this regrettable simulation of “ideological friendships” barely obtain the support of a meager 20% of citizens.
It is profoundly undignified to claim to represent us, when our national hero indelibly established that the authority of the representative ceases in the presence and by the decision of the sovereign.
The people today governed by the reader of the speech deserve a destiny infinitely superior to that endured by those governed by his “friends.”
They will have to demonstrate it once again, remembering that the struggle is, today as always, between freedom and despotism

Political representation and public discourse
Silences and international politics
Ideology and national reality

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics