| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| The U.N.? Who Cares? | |
| 2004-09-23 | |
| BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one--whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York--is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual. Despite the seemingly disparate geography of these continued attacks, we are always familiar with the similar spooky signature: civilians dismembered by the suicide belt, car bomb, improvised explosive device and executioner's blade. Then follows the characteristically pathetic communiqué or loopy fatwa aired on al-Jazeera, evoking everything from the injustice of the Reconquista to some mythical grievance about Crusaders in the holy shrines. Gender equity in the radical Islamic world is now defined by the expendable female suicide bomber's slaughter of Westerners. In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory "the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail"--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian "victory at any cost" rhetoric. Good luck.
| |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #31 They will get it by osmosis ya see. Just being close to us and certain panache and nuanced sort of goodness will rub off on them. It's a good thing. Let's triple the funding. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-23 5:42:18 PM |
| #30 Re #29 (eLarson) Which dictator--and there are loads of them--wants to be "pulled up" by the USA? Few or none of them wants to be pulled up by the USA. Nevertheless, their countries are pulled up by the USA because they are in the UN. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 4:58:57 PM |
| #29 Mike Sylwester wrote in #26: The UN is a place where the USA is dragged down by the rest of the world. But it is also a place where the rest of the world is pulled up by the USA. Are you serious? The UN is a hive of scum and villainy. Which dictator--and there are loads of them--wants to be "pulled up" by the USA? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-09-23 3:45:03 PM |
| #28 Kofi, Schmofi. The problem is that the UN concept doesn't work. Too much riff-raff in the membership to do any good. Like letting the Russians into Nato circa 1975. I heard an idea here a while ago that stuck with me. Bag the UN; start a new international organization with actual principles - a) regularly elected government (none of this elected for life shit) b) committed to freedom for all peoples c) no theocracies Would it create polaraization between those who were in and those who were out? You betcha - at least the natural enemies of democracy would be on the outside. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2004-09-23 3:16:38 PM |
| #27 ...Finally, in response to the fifth attempt to put the word "illegal" into his mouth, an apparently exasperated Kofi answered something like: "If your definition of 'illegal' is not being in compliance with the UN Charter, then it's illegal." Everyone who has been critical of Kofi for this statement should be aware of that entire context. Agreed. But that tactic has been around for decades, if not a century or two. Mr. Annan has a wee bit share of the blame. A career diplomat and bureaucrat should be somewhat aware of the tactic. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-09-23 12:59:03 PM |
| #26 The UN is a place where the USA is dragged down by the rest of the world. But it is also a place where the rest of the world is pulled up by the USA. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 12:39:01 PM |
| #25 RJSchwartz, I believe Kofi Annan was the chief UN diplomat on the ground in Rwanda as events were building to a head. The head of the Blue Helmet force there appealed to him for more men to prevent the upcoming massacre, but Annan refused to forward the request to the Security Council, or even to report on the implications of the changing situation. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-09-23 12:33:32 PM |
| #24 You are right, Mike-Kofi is not to blame for US vetoes; the UN body is. Tbe bigoted UN is responsible for a double standards (i.e., they pass resolutions condemning Israeli military responses to terrorist actions, but silently nod approval at Islamic/Arab suicide bombers who INITIATE THE KILLING of Jewish/Israeli citizens). I am glad we are at least back to focusing on the problem with the UN again. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-09-23 12:10:52 PM |
| #23 Rwanda, where Kofi blocked actions to stop the slaughter The Rwanda genocide took place in 1994. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was the UN guy until 1996. I'm not fan of Kofi but he's clean on Rwanda from what I can tell. Are you refering to a different Rwanda problem (helping rebels in the Congo in 1998 perhaps?) or was this just a slip. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2004-09-23 12:08:39 PM |
| #22 Re #20 (PlanetDan): the UN passes resolution after resolution condemning Israel for reasonably reacting to events that are objectively terrorist in nature. The US vetoes those proposals, and so they do not become UN resolutions. If Kofi Annan to blame resolution that is proposed and not approved? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 11:54:24 AM |
| #21 # 19 (Jarhead): If being in violation of the UN charter is a violation of intl law then that's illegal right? Not necessarily. I think Kofi Annan think there's a distinction and that he answered the questions the way he did for that reason. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 11:51:20 AM |
| #20 Mike: The issue here is the UN's, and therefore Kofi Annan's, credibility. For example, the UN passes resolution after resolution condemning Israel for reasonably reacting to events that are objectively terrorist in nature. It's motives are clear: appeasement of the oil-rich arab states. After all, it's an easy thing to do, garners an incredible amount of support by America- and Israel-hating factions and has few negative consequences. It is also unjust. This so-called center of world justice and evenhandedness cannot maintain credibility when it plays obvious political games. Add all these sorts of events up (Israel and others), compound it with known corruption (even Kofi's son is in on it) and you are left with an organization that does more harm than good. And Kofi leads that organization. What's worse, is he doesn't seem to be motivated to change it for the better. It is his job to do so. Kofi's latest remarks need to be considered in the context of all that he has done and has not done. In that regard, he is, in fact, inept at best or dishonorable and evil at worst. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2004-09-23 11:31:28 AM |
| #19 "Each time, Kofi evaded the question, answering that he thought only that it was not in compliance with the UN Charter." -which means what? Have the nuts to call it as it is according to your view Kofi. If being in violation of the UN charter is a violation of intl law then that's illegal right? If so, say so, if not - then stfu. Kofi got caught nuancing. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-09-23 11:23:56 AM |
| #18 ms = kofi lover |
| Posted by: anon 2004-09-23 10:52:57 AM |
| #17 I think all Rantburgers can appreciate that journalists can be pushy folks who can twist words, but the "context" you are trying to lend to the thread is devoid of any criticism of Kofi. Are you his agent?: ) |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-09-23 10:50:04 AM |
| #16 Re #14 (Jules): You have lost sight of the big picture, Mike, by making journalism the focus of your rebuttal I didn't intend to address the big picture. I intended to place Kofi Annan's recently quoted remarks into proper context. Because of that, I have basically been accused of defending genocide all over the world. If some journalist used the same methods to interview President Bush, all these same Rantburgers would be attacking the journalist, not President Bush. In this case, though, the victim of the presumptuous, tendentious journalist is being blamed. Didn't seem right to me. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 10:46:18 AM |
| #15 Re #12 (Robert Crawford) Yes, Robert, I meant Oil for Food. Rwanda, where Kofi blocked actions to stop the slaughter Blocked what actions? What was he supposed to do? Did the Security Council order any actions that he blocked? What do you, Robert, personally think that the UN should have done in Rwanda when the massacres began? Iraq, where Kofi aided and abetted the corruption of a relief effort, including the possible funding of terrorist groups. This is the case in which he's most obviously criminal, since some of the cash most certainly ended up in his own pocket. How did he aid and abet that? How much cash ended up in his pocket? Why are you so certan about this? What's your evidence that he personally benefited? Sudan, where Kofi drags his feet while the slaughter continues What specific Security Council decision is he dragging his feet to implement? Iran, where Kofi's UN refuses to do ANYTHING about the mullah's nuclear ambitions What specific Security Council decision about Iran has he refused to implement? Kofi's biggest flaw is that he takes the UN seriously. If he realized that he's the highest ranking crook in an organization largely made up of crooks, thugs, and despots, then he might have a glimmer of humanity. Instead he parades around, proud as a peacock, claiming the mantle of a man of peace. Whatever. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 10:42:08 AM |
| #14 Since when have all these Rantburgers become big defenders of presumptious, tendentious journalists who misquote people they interview? This is what I mean by myopia. You have lost sight of the big picture, Mike, by making journalism the focus of your rebuttal, rather than a.) the UN and what it stands for, b.) what responsibilities Kofi Annan has as the Secretary General of the UN. I could give a crap about the interchange with the journalist. There are bigger problems at hand. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-09-23 10:36:28 AM |
| #13 #11 (Jules): Are you trying to argue that the UN has behaved admirably in this WoT? I wrote only about Kofi Annan. Are you trying to argue that there is no double standard under Kofi with regards to aggression against innocent people? I wrote about an interview in which Kofi Annan was quoted as saying that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. Does the Secretary General of the UN have an obligation to address genocide committed by Arabs? Has he done so forcefully? I think he has, but perhaps not as "forcefully" enough to satisfy you. You go fetch his statements about Darfur and report back to us. ... while throwing hyperbolic chrages against the US ... What hyperbolic charges did he throw against the US? He basically said, if you (the journalist) say that your own definition of "illegal" is being out of compliance with the UN Charter, then you can say that the US invasion of Iraq is illegal. The journalist was presumptious and tendentious. He did not intend to report Kofi Annan's own statements. He intended to put his own words into Annan's mouth an then to report that. Since when have all these Rantburgers become big defenders of presumptious, tendentious journalists who misquote people they interview? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 10:33:11 AM |
| #12 Why is he a criminal? Food for Peace? Something else? What the hell is "Food for Peace"? Perhaps you mean "Oil for Food"? But, yes, let's start with Kofi's Kriminal Kapers: Rwanda, where Kofi blocked actions to stop the slaughter Iraq, where Kofi aided and abetted the corruption of a relief effort, including the possible funding of terrorist groups. This is the case in which he's most obviously criminal, since some of the cash most certainly ended up in his own pocket. Sudan, where Kofi drags his feet while the slaughter continues Iran, where Kofi's UN refuses to do ANYTHING about the mullah's nuclear ambitions Kofi's biggest flaw is that he takes the UN seriously. If he realized that he's the highest ranking crook in an organization largely made up of crooks, thugs, and despots, then he might have a glimmer of humanity. Instead he parades around, proud as a peacock, claiming the mantle of a man of peace. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-09-23 10:27:20 AM |
| #11 Mike-Are you trying to argue that the UN has behaved admirably in this WoT? Are you trying to argue that there is no double standard under Kofi with regards to aggression against innocent people? Does the Secretary General of the UN have an obligation to address genocide committed by Arabs? Has he done so forcefully? No. Does he have an obligation to address the corruption within the UN itself, which resulted in the graft of billions of dollars from Oil for Food? Don't you imagine a lot of people died as a result of that UN-abetted corruption? What do you recall about his addressing Oil for Food forcefully? Weak, boneless promises to investigate, inspired by a familial urge for self-protection. Deadly serious violations of the UN charter MUST BE ADDRESSED by the leader forcefully, without providing a double standard that benefits Arabs/Muslims members while throwing hyperbolic chrages against the US, who is one of a HANDFUL of member states that acted to ensure that the integrity of the UN was upheld. Let's not get myopic about what he can and can't do. He is the leader of that body. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-09-23 10:16:11 AM |
| #10 Re: #7 (Robert Crawford): .... Kofi the Kriminal? Why is he a criminal? Food for Peace? Something else? I placed his comment about Iraq being illegal into its proper context. Now that you know the context, do you think it was criminal? Do you think that I aided and abetted some criminal activity? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 10:05:43 AM |
| #9 Re #6 (Jules): Kofi, as the head of the UN, has a responsibility to be LEAD the UN. Kofi is the UN General Secretary. He mainly implements the decisions of the Security Council. He also insures that proper procedures are followed when the UN conducts its business. If the Security Council decides, for example, that UN troops will be placed into some location, then he puts UN troops there. He does not decide that it will be done, nor does he lead the Security Council members to decide that it will be done. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 10:02:20 AM |
| #8 Gee, Mike, Kofi is incapable of saying "no, and you can quote me on that"? That explains how he and his kid were "duped" into getting rich along with Saddam, the Phrench, the Russians, et al. It wasn't his fault! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-23 9:52:54 AM |
| #7 Gee, Mikey defending Kofi the Kriminal? Whouda thunk. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-09-23 9:36:50 AM |
| #6 Even if that is true, Mike, Kofi, as the head of the UN, has a responsibility to be LEAD the UN. He is a craven coward when it comes to holding Arab states to their obligations under the charter. If misdeeds are done by Arabs/Muslims, he will not address them. It's time for him to go-and the UN, too. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-09-23 9:32:35 AM |
| #5 Re #1 (phil_b): Hearing Kofi talk about legality makes me seeth. Did you really hear Kofi talk? Anyone who heard the actual interview knows that the interviewer persistently attempted to put the words into Kofi's mouth. The interviewer asked about five times: "So, is the US invasion of Iraq illegal?" Each time, Kofi evaded the question, answering that he thought only that it was not in compliance with the UN Charter. Finally, in response to the fifth attempt to put the word "illegal" into his mouth, an apparently exasperated Kofi answered something like: "If your definition of 'illegal' is not being in compliance with the UN Charter, then it's illegal." Everyone who has been critical of Kofi for this statement should be aware of that entire context. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-23 9:20:50 AM |
| #4 If only I were King for a day: the UN would be transformed into rent control housing, the 'diplomats' would be deported to whatever cesspool of a country wants them, and we would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Why do we pretend that this is still an honorable body of nations geared toward the betterment of mankind? No they are a loose association of rogue nations that closely resemble the Italian mafia in words (only without the muscle to back it up). Paying them is like paying tribute to an enemy so they you can still sit down and be abmonished why you don't do more for their personal comfort. END RANT! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-09-23 7:45:33 AM |
| #3 I was in a good mood until I read this article about my pet peeve. Now I'm angry and disgusted all over again. US out of the UN! |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-09-23 7:27:09 AM |
| #2 Maybe that's the solution Phil - we credential a spec ops team as UN diplomats and let them clean out that cesspool on the East River. ;) |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-09-23 7:09:04 AM |
| #1 Hearing Kofi talk about legality makes me seeth. A properly accredited UN diplomat could shoot his/her assistant, rape the secretary, mug the next person, and kidnap the nearest child without breaking any laws. Yes, these things are perfectly legal in downtown Manhattan on sovereign UN property (whatever that means). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-09-23 6:04:27 AM |