Redstate

By Rick Moran Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Why do people pretend that the United Nations is a place for the countries of the world to solve serious problems?

In order to solve serious problems, there must be a serious effort. There must be serious people who approach problems with a serious attitude. There must at least be agreement that what is decided will be taken seriously by the people who make the decisions. And finally, there must be a seriousness of purpose by the world community in order to if not enforce then certainly enjoin the parties involved to obey the mandates of the world body.

Anything less than this - anything that comes up short means that the United Nations is a failure as an institution where deadly serious conflicts are addressed in a serious manner by serious people with serious solutions proposed.

I want to hear no more about "They're doing the best they can." An attitude like that can get a lot of people - many of them Americans - killed.

I don't want to hear any more platitudes like "As long as they're talking with each other, they're not shooting at each other ." That kind of stupidity presupposes that an enemy doesn't use the "talking" part of the equation to get ready to shoot while the rest of the world that opposes him actually thinks that talking will solve the problem.

And I will brook no more nonsense from starry eyed idealists who see the United Nations as the "first stirrings of world government." The UN has had nearly 60 years to "stir" and all it has done is dry up, harden, and ossify into a brittle, broken down bureaucracy so patently corrupt and full of hatred and envy that its towering cynicism in claiming the diplomatic high ground is used by the thugs of the world solely as a way to sway western public opinion so that they can continue on their genocidal way without interference from the only people that can stop them.

The United Nations is not a serious place. It is a place where people pretend. It is a place where people pretend to address the serious issues of the day when they have no desire to do so nor seriously engage any process that would begin to solve them. It is a place where people pretend that what they do or say matters one whit to the gimlet eyed thugs whose murderous designs on the rest of humanity are downplayed and even rationalized. And it is a place where people pretend that all of this is so despite knowing full well that it is not.

Adults do not pretend. Adults deal with the world as it is not as they would like it to be. In this, the UN then has become a playground, a fantasyland for childish notions of "peace" and "stability." It has become the number one enabler of genocidal maniacs, brutish aggressors, and fanatics with an eye on Armageddon. And since the consequences of facing down the evil is too painful, they pretend the evil doesn't exist.

There may have been a time in the bi-polar world created by the rivalry between the USA and USSR when the UN served a purpose. In this one instance, it was indeed better to pretend that what the world body did mattered, that the talking-shooting scenario was important to the continued existence of life on the planet. The alternative was unthinkable.

But that was when both superpowers recognized the efficacy of the UN fig leaf. They could climb down from confrontation without loss of prestige or face. In this case, it was mutually assured pretending that kept the peace and prevented the missiles from flying.

Such calculations are lost on our adversaries today. To them, the UN exists as a PR adjunct, a useful tool to massage western media and sap the will to resist among the populations of the only people with the wherewithal to stop their mad designs from coming to fruition. In this, the UN has become part of their media strategy.

Witness President Ahmadinejad's response to the UN Security Council on his nuclear program. He is defying the will of the Council by not halting the Iranian enrichment program. But he has successfully paralyzed the world body by agreeing to talk about the Iranian nuclear program in the context of possibly ending it. No one really believes he has any intention of ending the program nor stop the Iranian's quest to build a nuclear device. But the UN will pretend that he does and more talks will ensue with pressure placed on the negotiating parties to give in to the mullahs in order to avoid conflict. The original resolution ordering him to cease enrichment activities by August 31st conveniently forgotten.

We have seen this pattern many times; in Darfur, the Saddam fiasco, and now the continued demands for the disarming of Hizbullah. If one resolution doesn't work, another one is passed as the world body basically pretends that the other resolutions do not exist. In any other context, such activity would be sufficient cause to commit the lot of them to a hospital mental ward for an examination to determine how much in touch with reality the members are. But in the case of the UN, this is reality.

Am I exaggerating? Not by much. This is part of the game of diplomacy as it is played out in the early 21st century. Process trumps results. And as long as that is true, the UN will remain an impediment to world peace and a place where the enemies of civilization will continue to press forward, secure in the knowledge that stopping them will entail a radical shift in the way that the world community deals with such threats.

Isn't it therefore time to take the question of whether the United States should remain in the UN out of the fever swamps inhabited by right wing wackos and place it squarely in the mainstream of conservative thought for serious discussion.

It's not the money. The $3 billion or so we give to the UN (about 27% of the UN's total budget) is a pittance, a hiccup in our $2 trillion budget. Congress gobbles up $3 billion as an appetizer. It's about what we spend on elections every 4 years. I could care less about the money or even if the UN gives us our money's worth which is an extraordinarily dumb yardstick to decide whether or not we should remain a member.

And forget all the good the UN does in the fields of refugee assistance or world health. Those worthy and necessary functions could be handled out of Zurich or Geneva. The bureaucracy is already there and the United States should continue to support the humanitarian goals of these and other vital world agencies. But using these agencies as an excuse to remain beholden to an organization that has proven its uselessness time and time again in the face of determined evil seems irrational to me. Better we form regional alliances and "Coalitions of the Willing" to confront and control both the state and non-state entities that threaten us. This does not mean war. It means showing resolute strength in the face of aggressive nation states and extra-state actors. While it may not deter them it could cause them to alter their plans, always a good thing in diplomacy or war.

We have reached a point where the UN no longer serves the interest of the United States in any meaningful way - at least not in any way that we would miss. If others wish to continue to play pretend with the fate of the planet, let them. For our part, we should withdraw from the United Nations unless and until they reform themselves so that they can seriously address the problems that now threaten our civilization.

Any other course smacks of suicide in my book.

Rick Moran

Cross Posted at Right Wing Nuthouse