The Argentinian government is not responding well to a slightly condescending warning from IMF Chief Christine Lagarde:

International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde has warned Argentina it could face sanctions unless it produces reliable growth and inflation data.

Ms Lagarde gave Argentina until 17 December to address the problem.

The IMF head said the fund had given Argentina a "yellow card" but it could face a red.[...]

"Argentina is good in football and it certainly understands what we are talking about," said Ms Lagarde.

But President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is challenging the ruling on the field (I know. Wrong kind of football. Work with me here.):

“My country is not a soccer team, it is a sovereign country and as such is not going to accept a threat,” Fernandez said in her UN speech. “This is not a soccer game, this is the most serious economic crisis since the 1930s.”

Insert replacement ref joke here. (It will at least be better than Wall Street Journal's recent attempt.) 

"I knew a boy called Ala'a. He was only six years old. He didn't understand what was happening. I'd say that six-year-old boy was tortured more than anyone else in the room. He wasn't given food or water for three days, and he was so weak he used to faint all the time. He was beaten regularly. I watched him die. He only survived for three days and then he simply died. He was terrified all the time. They treated his body as though he was a dog."

These are the words of a 16-year old boy named Wael, as recounted in a new report by Save the Children on the torture of children during the Syrian uprising. "Almost every child we've spoken to has seen family members killed," the report, which is the product of face-to-face interviews with Syrians in bordering countries, states. "

They have seen and experienced things that no child should ever see, and many are deeply traumatised as a result...The acts described are consistent, recurring and appalling."

They are also consistent with extensive reporting from the United Nations and several human rights organizations, which have detailed the use of torture by President Bashar al-Assad's regime, as well as its willingness to arrest family members of wanted men in order to intimidate them into silence.

U.S. President Barack Obama may have had the report in mind today, when he referred to the Syrian government in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly as "a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings."

Instead of the bland political jargon of most reports on the Syrian crisis, the Save the Children report is composed of roughly two dozen firsthand accounts of those who had witnessed, or been the victim, of torture. "I was tortured with electricity," said 24-year old Mohamad. "The children were too -- I saw this. We were in the same jail. The guards didn't hesitate -- they used electricity on their hands, their legs, their backs, their genitals. They would beat the children until they bled. Many died."

These accounts are important to read. Many of the reasons given for the Syrian revolt -- sectarian divisions, economic realities, and political mismanagement -- are all true, but they tend to conceal an important reality: This uprising is an almost unfathomable venture. Why would a largely unarmed population initially attempt to resist an army supplied by one of the world's major powers? What could compel Syrians to keep on resisting after tens of thousands had been killed, in the face of constant shelling and air bombardment?

Hopefully, these horror stories will provide a sense of why the Syrian revolt grinds on today, as it has every day now for 18 months. 

There's a lot of coverage today of Barack Obama's tough words for Iran at the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA), but the president has expressed the main points in the speech -- America's commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the limited timetable for a diplomatic solution -- before, notably in an interview with the Atlantic and a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this year.

Still, as the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg notes today, the U.N. General Assembly is "not exactly a Hadassah convention." And Obama's comments on Iran's nuclear program before world leaders on Tuesday were far more aggressive than the language he's employed in past UNGA addresses.

Here's what Obama said about the Iranian nuclear program today: 

Time and again, [Iran] has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Rewind to 2011:

The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful, it has not met its obligations, and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the south. There is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.

And 2010:

As part of our effort on non-proliferation, I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community. I also said -- in this hall -- that Iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities. And that is what we have done.

Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise.

Now let me be clear once more: The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it. But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.

And 2009:

I have said before and I will repeat: I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for [Iran and North Korea] if they live up to their obligations. But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards, if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people, if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable.

Obama, in other words, broke new ground today at UNGA by warning that the administration's patience on diplomacy and sanctions is wearing thin, outlining the dire global implications of a nuclear Iran, and stating that the United States will not permit Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Where Obama stopped short, however, is in repeating his assertion that all options -- including military force -- are on the table when it comes to preventing Iran from getting the bomb -- a key issue in the U.S. election (he opted for the vaguer formulation that "the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon"). Perhaps Obama wanted to avoid comparisons to George W. Bush, who made the case for invading Iraq at UNGA in 2002, just months before launching the operation. 

It's been a rough year for China's one percent. Just yesterday Reuters reported that demand for Chinese luxury brands -- down of late -- is unlikely to rebound after Beijing imposed a "frugal working style" on government employees in an effort to curb conspicuous consumption (read conspicuous corruption.) Now the Financial Times is reporting (behind the paywall) that the number of US dollar billionaires in China fell last year for the first time in seven years:

In its annual report on China's super-wealthy, released on Monday, Hurun [Rich List] said China had 251 people worth $1bn or more, down 20 from last year but still sharply up from 2006, when there were just 15...Nearly half of the 1,000 richest people in China saw their wealth shrink in the past year, 37 of them by more than 50 per cent. The average wealth of the top 1,000 also fell 9 per cent to $860m, at a time when growth in the Chinese economy has also decelerated, the property market has declined and the stock market has fallen sharply. Chinese GDP growth hit a three-year low of 7.6 per cent year on year in the second quarter of this year.

Reduced Chinese demand for luxury cars has also forced Toyota to scale back the production of Lexus cars for export to China. With the economic outlook so grim, there's no telling what could be next -- party officials might even be forced to think twice about buying Porsches for their kids!

One quote in particular stands out in today's New York Times article on the contrast of President Obama appearing on The View while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with world leaders in town for the U.N. General Assembly. Obama isn't conducting bilaterals with any foreign leaders, even though he held 13 during last year's session and Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush met with foreign leaders at the U.N. General Assembly while facing reelection (George H.W. Bush, like Obama, outsourced the meetings to Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger). Here's the nugget from the Times:

Mr. Obama was scheduled to attend a reception for world leaders at the United Nations on Monday night. But a campaign adviser acknowledged privately that in this election year, campaigning trumped meetings with world leaders. "Look, if he met with one leader, he would have to meet with 10," the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Not to nit-pick, but doesn't meeting with world leaders fall squarely within the president's job description?

Obama's aides have been more articulate in public about why the president isn't holding bilaterals, but this anonymous quote doesn't do much to discredit the charge that Obama is making an election-year calculation to avoid exposing himself politically -- and multiplying that exposure by ten.

There will be some new faces at the 67^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly this week. Some of them, like Egyptian president Mohamed Morsy, are  headliners, while others, particularly those who blandly won elections without revolutions, not so much. Here are a few of the freshmen in the U.N.'s Class of 2012 speaking on day one.

Immediately following Brazilian president Dilma Roussef and President Barack Obama, the podium will go to Tomislav Nikolic, the new president of Serbia. Elected and inaugurated in May, Nikolic has tried to rebrand himself from his previous persona as an ultranationalist politician, an effort that has worked with hardliners -- Nikolic was ousted from the Serbian Radical Party in 2008 over fundamental differences over Serbia's candidacy for the European Union. However, neighbors have chafed at his statements, particularly his denial that the massacre at Srebenica was genocide and his insistence that Vukovar, a town in Croatia, is actually Serbian. Croatian, Bosnian, Slovenian, and Macedonian leaders boycotted Nikolic's inauguration, and if Nikolic veers into sensitive subjects on Tuesday at the General Assembly, may be the first walk-outs of the session.

Later in the morning, Sauli Niinistö, the president of Finland, who took office in March, will speak. Finland is currently vying for a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Medina will be followed by François Hollande, the president of France who succeeded Nicolas Sarkozy in May. Hollande has scaled back some of his more ambitious proposals to try to generate new momentum in France's economy, but announced new taxes just before leaving for New York and will present his budget when he returns to Paris. In his remarks to the General Assembly, Hollande is expected to discuss threats to North Africa, including drought, famine, and radicalization.

Senegal will be represented by President Macky Sall, whose election and peaceful succession of President Abdoulaye Wade has been touted as a model for developing African nations. Last month, facing catastrophic flooding, Sall proposed shuttering the upper house of Senegal's bicameral legislature to pay for disaster relief.

Janos Ader will be representing Hungary. The first president elected under Hungary's new constitution came to power when the previous president stepped down amid revelations that he plagiarized his doctoral thesis. Ader's ardent nationalism has troubled others in the European Union.

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of Spain will be one of the day's closing speakers. He assumed office in December of last year, and while he has spoken at other U.N. events, when he speaks on Wednesday evening, attention will be squarely on Spain's financial crisis.

And that's just the first day. For a full list of speakers, U.N. Dispatch has an annotated schedule for today.