| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Wretchard's take on Annan's Proposals |
| 2005-03-23 |
| In my own opinion Kofi Annan's proposals are a recipe for disaster for two reasons. His entire security model is philosophically founded on a kind of blackmail which recognizes that the only thing dysfunctional states have to export is trouble. He then sets up the United Nations as a gendarmarie with 'a human face' delivering payoffs to quell disturbances. This is the "bargain whereby rich countries help the poor to develop, by promoting the Millennium Development Goals, while poor countries help alleviate rich countries' security concerns." Second, his model flies in the face of the recent experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire democratizing upheaval in the Middle East. It is by making countries functional that terrorism is quelled and not by any regime of international aid, inspections, nonproliferation treaties, declarations, protocols, conferences; nor by appointing special rapptorteurs, plenipotentiary envoys; nor constituting councils, consultative bodies or anything else in Annan's threadbare cupboard. Nor is this clanking monstrosity particularly efficient, even in contemplation. Neither new Security Council model solves the basic question: how can it compel nations with the muscle to act against their interests? Alliances, like political parties, are the building blocks of global politics. Forcing alliances to work within the artificial structure of the United Nations Security Council (A or B) adds nothing to the process. The sole value of the Security Council should be to rubber-stamp what global politics has already decided upon, as constitutional monarchs do in countries with Parliaments. It was a dictum in Field Marshal Zhukov's Army that a good commander never reinforced failure only success. It is a maxim of the United Nations that progress is achieved by doing everything that never worked all over again. Probably nowhere is the bankruptcy of Annan's vision (and I use that word consciously) for a better world. It is a laundry list of all the special interest 'development' goals the UN has acquired over the years where problems of different orders of magnitude and positions in the chain of causality are jumbled together; a bureaucrat's dream and a human being's nightmare. Zhang Fei commented: This resembles nothing so much as the old order of things - whereby the nomadic tribes would extract tribute from city states in exchange for not ravaging them. The more things change, the more they remain the same. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #3 One definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result". Can't we just play whack-a-mole with these guys? |
| Posted by: JT 2005-03-23 8:55:43 PM |
| #2 eLaarson. Perhaps we should have a conference in Bangcock on that (I hear they have some nice working girls there...). I think there are a few five-star hotels we haven't been kicked out of yet. Or perhaps we can go to Haiti - the hotels are not quite five star but we have a growing nookie-for-food program going there. I'll bring along Kojo. Then we can have a followup conference on having another conference..... |
| Posted by: Koffi Annan 2005-03-23 11:42:03 AM |
| #1 A protection racket, in other words. Even if we gave 10% of the whole world's collected GNP, how many people believe even one cent will get to the people living in, say, Darfur? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-03-23 11:35:51 AM |