The "Other" Legacy Of The Bush Presidency
making irrelevant the United Nations
By haystack Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
While we busy ourselves with the daily news about Prime Minister Pelosi's "new" foreign Policy initiatives, and as her minions further tamp down speculation she is headed next for Iran (a member of the so-called Axis of Evil our Nation stands AGAINST), and as two wars are waged on foreign soil by MULTI-NATIONAL forces, ask yourself what is missing in between the criticisms and the punditry.
Why, that arbiter of Freedom, Humanity, and Peaceful Co-existence of course...the United Nations.
Where are they, exactly, in the general scheme of things these days? Oh, that's right...they are waiting for the war to end so they can help. Indeed, they INSIST the Iraqis "intensify their efforts to adopt measures to stop the violence and promote national accord." When all is well, and everything is better, they'll be there to help.
Yeah, right. Well, at LEAST they are doing something about Global Warming...phew - thank goodness for that.
Whatever else he leaves behind, President George W. Bush leaves the reality of a broken and irrelevant United Nations.
For that, I will be eternally grateful.
More below the fold...
One need look no farther than Darfur to see just how effective this body can be. Sudan, Chad, Rwanda and countless others on THE continent the former General Secretary hails from.
Of course, more to the terrorism point we can reflect on the Lebanese and Israeli war in recent memory - you know, the one where Israel agreed to capitulate to the wailing and hand-wringing of the international community in the name of decency in war (a new term since Bush 43 came to office).
And, for their troubles, Israel was promised their soldiers back (the ones they went to war over in the first place) and a foreign force to keep Hezbollah under control. That went swimmingly, no?
NONE of Israel's soldiers have been returned; negotiating just how many death penalty-worthy Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists Israel must release from prison in exchange for their soldiers is where things stand today.
Lest we forget, 15 British soldiers were kidnapped by the Iranians. What did we ALL get for our troubles? A prisoner swap, and a release of Iranians (far fewer than 15) that we felt worthy of incarcerating for their involvement in undermining the attempts to pacify Iraq. The UN played ZERO role in that puppy...we were able to capitulate to the terrorists on our own just fine, thank you very much.
Of course, much has been accomplished on the global warming front. They, in their infinite wisdom, have decided the successful nations of the world are preventing the unsuccessful ones from enjoying likewise, and are hammering out the details of plans to force us to give up what we do so those who can't do for themselves can get a leg up towards doing exactly what we do. I know-it makes your head swim, don't it?
Well, that is progressive liberalism at its finest folks.
Thankfully this President, after playing the system as he was told he must, came to agreement on what to do about the Taliban. So too did he get agreement regarding Saddam. It doesn't matter who disagrees with themselves now, President Bush for his part is doing what we all agreed he SHOULD do.
Now that people are fighting instead of talking, the UN (and the American Democrat) has decided the fighting was never really what they wanted in the first place so it must stop.
Just as the Israelis have gotten for their troubles, so too will the coalition forces and NATO forces get their just desserts when we withdraw our forces so they (Ban Ki-moon and the boys) can go in and clean up the mess - the one they all agreed to make in the first place.
Nothing.
I used to be foolishly amazed by the incompetence of the UN, but am now in the "moderately entertained" camp regarding their value and merit on the world scene.
It was not so long ago that near-President Kerry and PM Pelosi and all the gang over there on the left side of the Great Chasm stoutly defended the UN, and firmly believed that all these untidy little terrorism gizmos be addressed and fully dealt with at the United Nations. When was the last time you heard the Prime Minister talk about the UN?
She DID go through Ki-moon and the kids before she left for Syria right? No?
She's going to give her trip report summary to them before she heads back to chill with Mahmoud and the gang, yes?
What's that? She learned from Bush 43 that there's no point in bothering to go through New York on your way to the Middle East?
Thanks Mr. President...now, can't we put that fancy building up for sale? I hear the real estate market in that neighborhood is booming these days.
Perhaps the net proceeds from the sale might go toward PM Pelosi's jewelry tab from Damascus and Tehran.
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | From The "Can We Call The North Korean Regime 'Evil' Now?" Department — Comments (1) »
The "Other" Legacy Of The Bush Presidency 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Admittedly, the UN has been a tremendous failure as a collective security instituion designed to eliminate war. For that purpose, its main goal, it is useless.
But, the UN does add some benefit to the US and the world. The UN brings together resources to address problems that would either have to be addressed by America alone, or would go unaddressed. As of a recent count, the UN had 17 peace keeping operations going around the world. Secondly, the UN provides a forum where countries with different interests can be convinced to cooperate on things like sanctions. Yeah its hard to get the cooperation in the UN, but it would be even harder without it since many nations respect the authority of the UN more than they do the interests of the United States. The point is, while the UN doesn't solve all problems or even the most important ones, it does do some good. And without the UN, all the examples you gave above would be just a problematic. I don't see great success at solving Darfur or with destorying Hezbollah outside of UN action either.
Open hostility to the UN only serves to decrease US power by sapping at percieved legitimacy of US power. It makes it harder for the US to act around the world. Reform is certainly necessary, but it is reform that's needed, not elimination or marginalization.
UN peace keeping operations are nothing more than way to concentrate a group of rapists and child molesters in a third world country where they won't be supervised. You actually think the UN is going to do anything about Hezbollah or Hamas other than calling for the elimination of Israel you're a complete utter fool. And as far as Darfur is concerned, if you want a picture of what "UN success" will look like, Google "Rwanda".
Every major undertaking of the UN, certainly in the last 25 years is riddled with corruption. Corruption, incidentally, that WE pay for.
The UN is nothing more than a full employment trick for high end hookers in NYC and it's good for the NYC high end restaurant business. As far as promoting anything even remotely "good" in the world, it's absolutely worthless.
Wanna see how good it really works, move it to Darfur.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
That the UN is worthless is the "Known Fact" which is believed based on emotional reaction.
You say look to Darfur to see how good the UN works. First of all, I said above that it doesn't solve all the world's problem or even the most important ones (like Darfur, or Hezbollah). It does however do something good, and that is reduce the severity of smaller, yet still important, problems. The best example is peace keeping operations. Second, its not as if Darfur and Hezbollah wouldn't be problems if the UN didn't exist. Israel tried to address the Hezbollah problem without the UN and it didn't get anywhere either. In Darfur, I don't see any countries doing much outside the UN that is having any real effect. The fact that there are problems that the UN doesn't solve doesn't prove that its worthless. Its difficult for any institution to solve these problems.
As for UN peace keeping being worthless or even bad for the world, I disagree. Sure there is plenty of corruption and there have even been cases of abuse. But would countries with UN peace keepers be better off without them? I dont think so. The Rand study found that UN operations have been more or less successful. It says:
UN missions are nearly always undermanned and underfunded, with uneven troop quality and late-arriving components. But despite these handicaps, the UN success rate among missions studied-seven out of eight societies left peaceful, six out of eight left democratic-substantiates the view that nation-building can be an effective means of terminating conflicts, insuring against their reoccurrence, and promoting democracy. The authors conclude that the UN provides the most suitable institutional framework for nation-building missions that require fewer than 20,000 men-one with a comparatively low cost structure, a comparatively high success rate, and the greatest degree of international legitimacy.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG304/
My main point, the UN is far far far from perfect, but helps sovle some problems in some circumstances that wouldn't otherwise be solved. I don't see how we'd be better off without it.
employment for otherwise unemployable cads and fools.
UN peacekeeping is crime, without regard to Rand. If there were anything that even resembled justice in the world, Kofi Annan and about half of the "management" team at Turtle Bay would be in a third world prison for the rest of their lives.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
so is the UN, its operations,and its people. Even if the peacekeepers screw up or do evil on purpose, on the whole thier operations have been successful in preventing reoccurrence of violence. On net, the people are better off with peacekeepers than without them.
The UN is DESIGNED to be a sewer of corruption and incompetence. The world, and certainly the US, would be infinitely better off without them.
If they're so great, let them reconstitute somewhere other than the US and do it with Euros not dollars.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
...I think the UN is fundamentally -- and, perhaps, fatally -- flawed. This isn't about whether it's perfect or imperfect. Obviously, as an institution of men, it's imperfect. But to argue over such a truism is to completely miss the point. So is to argue over whether or not it's ever done any good for mankind.
So let's dispense with all the red herrings about it.
The fatal flaw in the UN's construction, IMO, is that it resists taking moral positions. That is, it operates from the astoundingly screwy premise that any and all political systems, any and all economic systems, any and all cultures are inherently and morally equivalent.
Granted, it talks a good game about human rights and such. And, sometimes, it even backs the talk up with action. And, sometimes, that action proves worthwhile. But the UN has been in existence for 6 decades now -- and the world is still chock full of odious governments, many of which practice varying means of oppression, all of which are in good standing at Turtle Bay.
To wit, it saves its harshest criticisms for, well, us....while people like Castro, Mugabe, etal are regularly excused, tolerated, or even feted.
Forget whether such an institution is perfect or imperfect, does good or doesn't. Instead, ask yourself just how much credibility is deserved by men or institutions with such moral blindness?
I think there's a place in this world for a good, pan-global, multinational organization like the UN. But this one, like its predecessor, ain't it. We need one that has some modicum of moral clarity -- instead of always trying to tolerate and understand all manners of tyranny, oppression, and thuggery.
"Forget whether such an institution is perfect or imperfect, does good or doesn't. Instead, ask yourself just how much credibility is deserved by men or institutions with such moral blindness?"
I think this quote gets to the heart of the disagreement. On my side, the paramount question IS whether or not it goes good on net. Outcome is more important than our moral evaluation of the people who compose the institution. A meaningless verbal comdemnation of America or Israel is a small price to pay for thousands of lives saved in the Congo.
I think its necessary to have a debate about whether or not the current UN as it stands, is a net plus or a net negative to the world. A second debate about possible reform or possible replacement (with another institution with more moral clarity) would be useful, but it remains a separate debate.
It didn't get near the coverage of the Lantos/Pelosi tour of Middle Eastern Enemies, but second-tier Democratic Presidential candidate (and perhaps likely VP candidate) Bill Richardson just left North Korea via the DMZ to South Korea. Hmmmm... And the Dems made fun of McCain's walking tour of Baghdad.
he went there to negotiate the release of US Soldier remains from the korean war. Not to give a rosy update on the progress on the ground in North Korea. Tell me, what foreign policy political goals did McCain accomplish in Iraq? Richardson actually got something done in North Korea.
Yes, by all means sell the UN property and move it to France, that bastion of world order. Let them pay the billions every year to keep it going. Let the US become just another member, but keeping our Security Council status, of course. It has become a worthless, useless operation, like France. Just a thought, of course. But you never know, it could happen. What if we get somebody like Fred (Thompson) to clean house? He is beholden to no one and seems just the guy who gets things done. I say give him a shot. RUN, FRED, RUN!
Marty J.
That way it could serve of some value to the interests of the United States.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan