Thursday, June 08, 2006
The UN is in Serious Trouble
John Bolton responded that the implicit criticism of the American people, since they do elect the Congress and the Administration after all and watch or listen to whatever news they freely choose, was imprudent, and he advised Secretary General Annan to consider repudiating his Deputy's remarks. To Bolton's everlasting credit, he did add that Annan should say whatever he truly believes. Not surprisingly, Annan elected to back his Deputy. Bully for him.
It is inescapably true that the UN is a flawed institution, plagued at the moment by an appalling corruption that certainly competes with and in my view exceeds anything Enron ever did. Oil for food corruption, verified by Paul Voelker and a Congressional investigation; in-the-field corruption by UN troops; incompetence such as the witnessed masssacre at Srebenica; an inability to project force to meet its intended purpose; a human rights commission which elevates tyrants from Libya and Cuba to places at the table; a security council which reflects the realities of 1945, not 2006. It's all terribly, tragically broken. It is in dire need of renovation or outright reconstruction. And in that context, this Deputy fellow assails the UN's chief sponsor? Its chief benefactor? Its chief founder? Publically? Aggressively? Is this wisdom?
My father used to put it quite succinctly. Don't sh-t where you eat. I believe the Deputy Secretary General did just that.
12 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jun 08, 11:24:00 PM:
I wait anxiously for the day when an American Congress kicks the UN out of New York.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jun 09, 01:38:00 AM:
Dawnfire, as satisfying as that would be, I believe it is a great advantage for us that the United Nations is in New York.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jun 09, 05:28:00 AM:
I believe it is a great advantage for us that the United Nations is in New York...
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer? :)
By 
, at
Fri Jun 09, 07:10:00 AM:
The UN is a pathetic organization, lacking the will, capability or determination to do anything without the US and it's steadfast allies like the UK. The security council is corrupt, as is Annan himself.
Boot them out, parse the building into swank condos, and toss the "diplomats" in the klink until the cough up the zillions in unpaid parking tickets. That alone will reimburse us tons for financing this ongoing charade.
Why we submit to equal footing with bogus allies and feckless insignificant countries is appalling.
By , at
Fri Jun 09, 09:36:00 AM:
Can anyone name a genuine successful UN action or initiative since the end of WWII. Korea was a US action endorsed by the UN in a fluke vote since the USSR was "out of the room" at vote time. Sorry, I can't
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Jun 09, 10:57:00 AM:
You guys are funny.
I come over here and hear about how all the negative talk about Iraq emboldens the enemy and hurts our troops' morale, but when it comes to the U.N. you guys whistle a completely different tune.
It's bizarre that folks don't want to utilize this unique institution and maximize its potential.
The comments made were, by my estimation, fairly benign - simply pointing out that Republicans bad mouth the U.N. every chance they get and work to undermine it every chance they get. That's just facts... You don't like facts?
The U.N. has great potential, though it needs an overhaul. But the noises coming out of conservatives are not reform, they're destruction.
I support a strong U.N., an institution that pursues an international model of cooperation. It's an experiment in progress, and Americans don't need to abandon it.
By , at
Fri Jun 09, 11:46:00 AM:
Anonymous said :"Can anyone name a genuine successful UN action or initiative since the end of WWII..."
I can, and did, the last time CardinalPark posted on this topic
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/05/un-kills.html
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jun 09, 07:52:00 PM:
Right. But people treat it like it *shoud be* a world government. And others act like it *is.*
UN fans: "Oh no, you can't do that without the UN's permission. It says so right here in The Charter. (tm)"
Nation state: "The hell I can't. Watch."
UN fans: "Oh god, it's illegitimate! It's criminal! Impeach impeach!"
Other countries repeat this mantra as well... when it's convenient. That is, when your foes try to do something you don't like. In 2003 France was all uppity about invading Iraq and how it wasn't 'legal' under the Charter (tm) and so forth, *WHILE* they were landing troops in the Ivory Coast. By themselves, without asking anyone, much less the UN.
The UN is a joke, a house of corruption and conspiracy. Because it's a collective institution, we can't ignore it until everyone else (who matters) does too, so we should just kill it.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Fri Jun 09, 10:34:00 PM:
The dislike of the UN on the American Right goes back a long way, but I think it receded significantly for many years. I don't recall that Limbaugh said much about it in the 90's, though I imagine what he did say was negative. National Review would only mention it once in awhile when I had a subscription in the same time period.
When George Bush was determined to go through the UN I thought he was wrong, but I admit I did hope for awhile that he had found the key to bringing use out of it. With each resolution that passed, my hope grew, though it was never very large. I sensed that many on the right had similar feelings. At least, they made similar comments.
When the disappointment and suspected perfidy of the UN's unwillingness to close the deal in Iraq and simply go forward with what they had insisted they would do turned out to be accurate, as trade relations with France, Germany, and especially Russia were revealed over time, most on the American right regarded it as suspicions confirmed, and anger started to swell.
As the sheer volume of corruption and hypocrisy came to light over the past few years, the American right seems to have said "never again. We tried to trust you, and you betrayed us in the worst way, for the worst motives."
Screwy rather mildly says that Republicans bad mouth and try to undermine the UN. I am uncertain whether that is a rhetorical flourish with full recognition of the whole story, or if he really refuses to acknowledge what the reasons are behind that bad mouthing. It seems rather like saying "you are bad mouthing child molesters and undermining them at every turn." (In fact my analogy is more of a description of the UN in Africa). Yes, it is certainly true. We are badmouthing the UN. And that would be wrong because...?
I suppose the KKK, Shining Path, and the Khmer Rouge were also "unique institutions" with "great potential." I'm not seeing how that necessarily an argument in favor of reform rather than destruction.
SH, I am truly curious. Are these other parts of the argument known to you, but you ignore them for the sake of making a stronger argument, or do they actually not occur to you?
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Jun 10, 01:20:00 AM:
Neither, AVI.
I know of the problems, and I continue to believe in the relevancy and hope of a United Nations. There's a place for U.N. leadership in the world, and there's a place in the world for open diplomacy and cooperation.
Tigerhawk just posted a cartoon of the press as a lynch mob ready to string up the heroes of Iwo Jima. You remind me of a lynch mob when it comes to the U.N.
Excessively unwilling to focus on the shortcomings or our own government, you look elsewhere to have a moral outrage. There's plenty to be outraged in the way the U.N.'s been operated, and cooperative reform is unquestionably needed - just as it is needed in our country to begin the work of repairing the damage this administration is wreaking.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 10, 01:48:00 PM:
There's a difference, however. Corruption and other issues in our government (and other democracies) are temporary; the individuals can always be removed from office. They have temporary tenures.
The corruption of the UN is systemic. It is rooted in the simple fact that all countries there get 1 vote, (and to a lesser extent, any passage through the UNSC requires unanimity among the 'Big 5') and the number of tiny, corrupt, pissant despotisms and their ilk vastly outnumber the more just, fair societies of the world. And so they get their way in things like preserving a random allotment system that makes Iran chairman of the Nuclear Nonproliferation committee, and giving Sudan, China, and Cuba seats on the Human Rights Committee, and so forth.
This is also why there have been myriad condemnations of Israel at the UN, but few (if any) condemnations of Fatah and Hamas terrorism, and why the banana republic style militias that they call "Member State armed forces" get issued little powder blue helmets and get sent into disaster areas to trade humanitarian aid for sexual favors from little kids.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if members of the US Army were found guilty of such behavior? It would be in the media for years, spontaneous demonstrations and riots would erupt, heads would roll in Washington, enlistments would fall, diplomats would scream their outrage, et cetera. But UN peacekeepers do it, routinely, and there's hardly a peep. Why is that? I think it's because people expect no better. (aside, I think that the general leftist dislike for the Army but pathetic deference to the UN is completely repulsive for just this reason.)
Let me repeat. (Armed) Representatives of the UN have used their positions to extort sex from children. For years. And nothing has been done.
An institution like that needs to die.
And I haven't even gotten to the Oil for Food scandal, or the selling and purchasing of votes, or the abuse of representatives' diplomatic immunity to play havoc in New York or conduct espionage.
Sometimes, the victim of a lynching deserves it.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jun 11, 11:03:00 PM:
Screwy, by answering a question I didn't ask, you revealed more than you wished about your thinking.
