Posted on 05/24/2004 8:57:54 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
With President Bush's go-it-alone policy foundering in Iraq, many of his critics are calling for a return of American foreign policy to a traditional multilateralism centered on the United Nations. Bush's critics are right to point out that the United States benefits when its actions enjoy U.N. blessing. Gaining such support can often be as important as demonstrating America's power and will to act. But they fail to acknowledge publicly what everyone admits privately: that as a pre-Cold War institution operating in a post-Cold War world, the United Nations is not up to the task of handling the most pressing security challenges.
An immediate problem is that the United Nations lacks the capability to make a difference. Its blue-helmeted troops can help keep the peace when warring parties choose not to fight. But as we learned in the Balkans, they cannot make peace where none exists. And as we saw in the 12 years preceding the Iraq war, the United Nations cannot enforce its most important resolutions.
Efforts to improve the United Nations' capacity to respond to global security threats are laudable. But we are never going to see a U.N. army. And proposals to remake the Security Council, train peacekeepers and eliminate featherbedding -- to name just a few of the most popular reforms -- will only marginally improve the United Nations' ability to act.
The deeper problem is that these reform proposals do not go to the heart of what ails the organization: It treats its members as sovereign equals regardless of the character of their governments. An Iraq that ignores resolutions demanding that it dismantle its weapons of mass destruction can chair the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. A Sudan that wages a genocidal civil war can be voted onto the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
The idea of sovereign equality reflected a conscious decision governments made 60 years ago that they would be better off if they repudiated the right to meddle in the internal affairs of others. That choice no longer makes sense. In an era of rapid globalization, internal developments in distant states affect our own well-being, even our security. That is what Sept. 11 taught us.
Today respect for state sovereignty should be conditional on how states behave at home, not just abroad. Sovereignty carries with it a responsibility to protect citizens against mass violence and a duty to prevent internal developments that threaten others. We need to build an international order that reflects how states organize themselves internally. The great dividing line is democracy. Democratic states pose far less of a threat to other countries and are often more capable than autocracies. That is why democratic nations should rally together to pursue their common interests.
We need an Alliance of Democratic States. This organization would unite nations with entrenched democratic traditions, such as the United States and Canada; the European Union countries; Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia; India and Israel; Botswana and Costa Rica. Membership would be open to countries where democracy is so rooted that reversion to autocratic rule is unthinkable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is great! I would love to see this as part of Bush's second-term agenda. How could the Democrats argue against it?
"Its blue-helmeted troops can help keep the peace when warring parties choose not to fight."
Some ringing endorsement that is. I could do that. I wonder if Koffi would pay me.
That and the new body should have enshrined in it's charter that:
1. it would respect its member nations' sovreignty.
2. it would support peoples rights to represtative leadership, and
3. it would suppport individuals' right to defend themselves against criminals and oppresive governments.
A 'Freedom League' could do a lot of good.
This "alliance" would be far more likely than the UN to become a consolidated force, complete with a government in every aspect but name. It's not needed. All that's needed is for our government to clearly make our case to the world when we decide to take action (I mean, beyond slogans and platitudes), and to not be intimidated by catcalls from other nations. Anything else would constitute a threat to our sovereignty.
Sure, kind of the way that a slave benefits by servitude to his "master". A master who intends to work him until he can go no further and then discard him in an out-of-the-way grave.
And I over two years ago. I'll see if I can dig up the link. I'm sure someone suggested it 10 years ago.
For my education, could someone please list the top ten successes of the UN? If that is too hard, how about the great victories of the UN for the last ten years (any number will do)? Failing that, how about anything benefiting free and peaceful nations -- you know, like liberating Burma or stopping the slaughter in central Africa or saving the starving Somalies??
No, I do not look at enriching the European elite and UN officials at the expense of Iraqi children and USA's reputation as a particular success. But then, I am not a UN official.
I can think of one, Korea.
Try again on the link.
The myopic support for the UN in some parts of the US is a testament to the sad state of schooling in this country. I think a big part of the attachment to the UN is the allegiance everyone is taught to principles of democracy, platitudes such as "one man, one vote" and "majority rules".
Translated into global principles, this means to some numbskulls that the world should be governed by majority vote of the nations, and that those who don't accept what the other governments decree (as in Kyoto) are simply schoolyard bullies, refusing to submit to the civilized rules of a polite society, one that has debated and decided, and whose will must then be obeyed.
Let's break that thinking down, shall we:
In Libya, say, a young fellow not smart enough to promote himself from Colonel to General takes power from one strongman in a violent coup, and becomes a new strongman. What is a strongman? A nicety for a dictator, a person who is the only and ultimate political force within a polity. All political decisions, from the organization of the economic structures, ownership of property, allocation of government resources, conduct of military affairs, law, rights and issues of whether someone can continue to live, flow from this individual's will and no one else's.
This person, call him Daffy if you wish, is the person who determines what his country's vote within the UN. His will is no more a reflection of his country's will than any other person's, yet it is the one that counts within the UN.
By contrast, in another country, call it Freedistan, the President is elected by vote of the people. He is responsible for directing his country's foreign policy, including within the UN, but is constrained by the fact that he must be subjected periodically to the voters, and he does not pass the nation's laws, allocate its funds, or even determine the size of its military. All of those issues must be approved by a large body of haggling turkeys to whom the President must defer to and consult with if he wants to get anything through.
When that person then sets a policy at the UN, it may or may not reflect the thinking of his nation's will, but it usually does, and if it does not fairly reflect the polity from which it springs, the nation has methods of ensuring a change in regime.
By what muddled form of thinking does the will of one man, a tyrant who tortures those who disagree with him, merit the legitimacy of a "vote" at a body of Nations, a vote equal to the say of a person who has been chosen to represent a nation like Freelandia? I say the entire structure makes no sense, and not only is structured badly, but is a great force for evil, by perpetuating in easily misled minds that the will of such a body is worthy of consideration, and thus interfering with the beneficial efforts of representative and law-abiding societies to protect their interests in the world from the tyrants.
No nation deserves a "substantive" say in any international body unless that nation has passed a grueling set of tests that ensures that the position it takes within that body are the result of a political process designed to fairly reflect the views and beliefs of the people of that nation. Collections of national diplomatic corps which mingle democracies with dictators are fine for exchanging views, or organizing humanitarian efforts, but as a way to try to bind fair and free societies, they are anathema and should be avoided.
Instead, we need to educate the people of what I call "legitimate" governments to the notion that the UN is, for the most part, a collection of thugs and criminals, whose opinions are not relevant to, and certainly not binding upon, free societies. We should then begin the process of forming a "League of Free Peoples" (the LFP) or "Coalition of Legitimate Governments" (the CLG) or some such group, and only the actions of that body would merit any weight.
Its rules would reflect more accurately the weight that individual governments' views should be given (Iceland's vote would be worth less than ours, for example) and its actions would carry the actual imprimatur of international consensus. Initially, it would be composed of the US, Britain, Australia, Japan, the states of New Europe, as well as weasel democracies like France, Germany and Canada. If Russia, Chile and other semi-democratic states pass the tests of "legitimacy" they could be admitted.
"With President Bush's go-it-alone policy foundering in Iraq,"
That's all I needed to read.
Possible only because Stalin had the USSR delegate walk out, rather than veto the Korea resolution. A mistake that was never made again.
"I can think of one, Korea."
Which one? The one where millions have died due to starvation or the one that has to watch its back for fear of an invasion?
The UN doesn't keep N. Koreans from starving. The US does that. If the US stops food shipments tomorrow, within a year N. Korea will give up its nukes and agree to true peace talks.
I notice that global warming slipped in there. I point this out because I think that it illustrates my take on the whole idea: that any transnational organization, funded by the US (let's be realistic) and unanswerable to anyone in particular, will sooner or later become just another UN.
Cooperating to combat terrorism... great. Curtail weapons proliferation, a little more iffy, but I guess... infectious diseases, well yeah, nobody likes diseases... curtail global... what?
And there we are, our brand new Organization of Democratic States gone off the rails already because some senior official with an agenda is married to Global Warming, or a World Minimum Wage, or any of a million other bad ideas, and is in a position to spend American dollars on it regardless of what the US taxpayer thinks.
In my opinion, temporary alliances that form and disband for particular purposes as needed, coupled by strong free trade, is the best model for international cooperation.
The United Nations was set up with the defenders against the Axis nations after world war II having permanent seats on the security council. Other democracies were allowed to be members.
England represented all of her colonies, including India, the old Ottoman empire, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the Bahama's and a few other colonies.
France represented numerous other colonies in Africa, South America, Haits,
Where things started going wrong right after the war. The Soviet Union essentially had occupation of large parts of Europe. They controlled the political system and the internal domestic situation of Czeck, Romania, Poland, Albania, Yugoslav, etc. They frequently voted as a block against the US .
As the British Empire broke up. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India managed to keep democratic systems even though India was socialist for a lenghty period.
The Old Ottoman Empire broke up into numerous countries made up essentially of dictators even though they claimed monarchy. Many of the countries are smaller than states in the US. They have moved increasingly islamofascist.
The UN is not a body representing the self governing nations of the world. It is increasingly representative of dictatorships of one variety or the other.
I don't know if you'd even call it a mistake. It was only their ambassador who walked out. The military staff remained in place, which left them well-positioned to conduct all manner of espionage on our operations.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N.
James Fee says the United States should walk
Posted 05-20-2004, 13:38
by James Fee
On May 4, 2004, the U.S. ambassador to UNESCO walked out of the U.N. It was refreshing and encouraging to see. Sadly, it was only temporary. The U.S. relationship with the U.N. during the last 50-plus years has had its ups and downs. But the U.N. of today shares so little in common with the values and political structure of the U.S. that it is a relationship worth ending.
Ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the U.N. protesting the election of Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Sudan is now a U.N. human rights watchdog for the entire world. This is worse than letting the fox guard the hen house; the U.N. just locked the fox in the hen house. To say that Sudan's human rights record is abhorrent is the understatement of all understatements.
Human Rights Watch – hardly a bastion of conservative thought – has this to say about Sudan: "The Sudanese Government is responsible for ‘ethnic cleansing' and crimes against humanity in the western region of Darfur." Many of the victims of this genocide are Christians in the southern Sudan. Sadly, perhaps that is one of the reasons there is little condemnation of the Sudanese government (which is not Christian).
Colin Powell said of the Sudan, "There is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth today."
This is the type of nation that sits on the Human Rights Commission in the United Nations. No wonder Siv walked out. What is outrageous is that no one else did.
However, Sudan is not the only disgusting regime represented on the commission. A look at the council's members is revolting. China occupies a seat on the Human Rights Commission; remember that China is a nation with forced abortion, no free speech, and frequent religious persecutions.
Further down the list, one finds Cuba, another paragon of virtue, whose totalitarian cult of Fidel tolerates little to no dissent or freedom of speech. Then there is Saudi Arabia, our ally for oil-related reasons, which allows no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech and drives women back into burning buildings because they are not properly veiled. Rounding out this impressive list is Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is intent on eradicating the white population of his country. This rather inefficient land redistribution program has had unfortunate results for the country, namely famine. Mugabe also allows no freedom of the press, suppresses his political opponents, and fancies himself the new leader of Africa.
With a Human Rights Commission like this, freedom of religion and speech and basic democratic principles must no longer be important to the U.N.
Then again, that shouldn't be surprising. The U.N. places democracies on the same footing as totalitarian dictatorships, and regrettably, there are more of the latter than the former. The result, is that the U.N. does not share the principles espoused by the world's democracies. At one time, the U.N. was more in tune to the principles it espoused. Today, the U.N. is anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-human rights. One only has to look at the resolutions vetoed in the UN Security Council and approved by the General Assembly. There is never condemnation of the murder of Christians around the globe, but when the reverse happens it is roundly condemned as it should be. Apparently, the U.N. can only get it right 50% of the time. When a Palestinian homicide-bomber blows himself up on a bus full of school children, the U.N. is silent. When Israel responds by killing those responsible, Israel is condemned for continuing the cycle of violence and for merely existing.
The U.N. General Assembly is a debating society for the world's dictatorships; it is not a body devoted to a better world or to human and democratic rights.
The U.S. walked out of the U.N.; the U.S. should keep walking.
James Fee is a Weinberg junior. Contact him at j-fee@northwestern.edu.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.