You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International
David Warren on the UN
2003-03-16
This latest UN travesty has demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that the UN is itself a counter-productive institution. No organization that puts advanced constitutional democracies on a par with corrupt, dysfunctional Third World dictatorships can have any moral authority. No bureaucracy such as that which has sustained the inspections rackets of Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei has any business entering into serious matters of life and death.

And while there is hardly space to review the whole comprehensive disaster of the UN's organizational efforts in social, economic, and cultural affairs — or the very mixed results of its humanitarian efforts — I can find no part of the main institution worth retaining. Such useful agencies as those which regulate civil aviation, intellectual property or cross-border mail delivery do not require the UN edifice to continue their work. Most such were founded long before the UN, and the only contribution from headquarters is to make them bloated, inefficient, and political.

But that is hardly the worst sin of which the organization can be accused. In the final view, the evil of the UN consists in its having appropriated to itself the very ideals of human co-operation and solidarity, our hopes for international order and peace. By making all effort towards such ends dependent upon an apparatus of bottomless cynicism and corruption, the UN subverts those ideals and hopes.

The most effective way to proceed is for the United States to lead, by withdrawing its membership and all support, including all diplomatic and even parking privileges accorded to delegations in New York. For all that it has achieved, the UN deserves to be reduced from an international, to a municipal problem.
Ouch. As usual, bang on the money. I was just saying yesterday that a year ago, the U.S. withdrawing from the UN was a fringe position, but if it happened today, most of the American public would approve. By letting Jacques rant on and obstruct at every turn, and by refusing to connive at hiding the venality and corruption of the system, Bush has let the UN discredit itself. I think Kofi's seen this pretty clearly, too. He's been mighty subdued lately.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#6  Lexicon---The rest of the world will hate us, but after we move on, they will readjust themselves to the new reality or they will stand at the bus stop and watch the bus pull away. Real leadership means that one is not necessarily popular. I am with you. Open the bloody seacocks and send the UN to Davy Jones' locker. I sure do not see much salvagable in her rotting hull.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-03-16 23:13:39  

#5  I can almost understand negotiating with other democratically oriented nations to push for coordinated military action-- it's hard for me to accept the Iraqi delegation heading a committee on Disarmament, or the Libyan delegation heading the Council on Human Rights.

It would be preferable if the UN were to implement serious sweeping reforms, but the ship is so corrupt it may be better to sink the darn thing and rebuild it with a "Six Sigma" approach in mind. Of course, the rest of the World at Large will hate us for our arrogance when we flush the UN down the commode... but what else is new?
Posted by: Lexicon   2003-03-16 21:48:06  

#4  Agreed - when we have to bargain with Guinea, Mexico and Chile to implement our national defense means, the American people can understand how ludicrous it is - UN to Paris - Now!
Posted by: Frank G   2003-03-16 16:53:41  

#3  Yeah, I used to think the "U.S. out of the U.N." ranters were whackos. Now I am one!
Posted by: Parabellum   2003-03-16 16:43:55  

#2  I think that organizations like world health, ICAO, mail, and others mentioned above will work well under international agreements, and not under the auspices of a high overhead parent organization. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. These good institutions need to be nurtured and the UN and all its corruption needs the old heave ho. Keep the other organizations lean so they do not become like the UN or the (in)famous IOC. The useful international institutions also need some mechanism for periodic performance review to keep them relevant and honest.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-03-16 15:57:05  

#1  *nods* damn right.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-03-16 15:01:36  

00:00