| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| McCain proposal for alternative to UN gains support |
| 2008-05-30 |
| Gaining ground this political season is a proposed League of Democracies designed to strengthen support for the next president's overseas agenda and ensure a global leadership role for the United States. John McCain, the virtually certain Republican presidential nominee, has endorsed the concept of a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared views and has discussed the idea with French and British leaders. "It could act where the U.N. fails to act," he said last month, and pressure tyrants "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval." Gonna get rid of that stupid unanimous committee thing I presume? McCain said the League might impose sanctions on Iran, relieve suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan and deal with environmental problems. Barack Obama, who has a lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, has not taken a stand. But Anthony Lake, one of Obama's policy advisers, has spoken in favor of the idea. Of course he hasn't taken a stand. Every time he does before everyone else reveals their opinion it turns out he's wrong one and shows off his ignorance in stark contrast! Analysts at think tanks in Washington and elsewhere envision a league focused on maintaining peace and limiting U.S. military intervention, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. But missing so far are specific, proposed steps to turn the idea into reality, such as where to have a headquarters, who would finance the league and how its membership would be decided. How about across the street from the New York UN headquarters? It'll cut down on commute time for the democratic nations and keep the rest focused. Maybe. "Cooperation is an absolute essential," Ivo Daalder, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, said Thursday at a seminar. An originator of the idea, Daalder said it would give democracies a better opportunity to reform the United Nations. Smack! "If there had been a dialogue on Iraq there would have been more rigorous containment of Saddam Hussein," possibly averting war, said Tod Lindberg, a Hoover Institution research fellow, at the seminar held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But not all foreign policy experts support the proposal. Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at Carnegie, said "the world has no appetite for a U.S.-led league and many countries do not want the U.S. going around the U.N." Of course they don't, dumba$$. That's precisely why it needs to be done. In fact, Carothers said, the United States cooperates often with non-democracies in its foreign policy. China's help in trying to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program is just one example, he said. What help? They could end it with a wave of their hand if they so chose. Instead they choose to prolong it. Strike two, Dumba$$. President Bush's Iraq war policy was bitterly opposed by two leading democracies, France and Germany, among others. But Bush went ahead despite their strong objections. You mean their objections that were rooted in the pipe dream that Saddam would actually pay them what he owed them for the cool new weapons systems or oil contracts or whatever else it was they were doing illegally? Right. "It is wishful thinking" that a league of democracies would any more readily approve U.S. military intervention in support of another U.S. president, Carothers said. Well, I suppose it depends on their motivations. Like France and Germany. Strike three. And while "some people like Senator McCain imagine it might become a replacement for the U.N., that is not the initial intention," Carothers said in a telephone interview after the seminar. Sorry, I stopped paying attention after strike three. But I'll bet that whatever you did say is probably skewed by whatever it is that seems to be pulling your strings. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #5 A serious caucus within the UN would be more useful than another group. What we are really talking about is our failure to use the UN properly. If we are not going to use the body we should kill the body. Perhaps this is a step towards turning the UN into the League of Nations. If that's the end game I support it. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-05-30 15:15 |
| #4 grom, why stop there. I mean, a Digg like, Web 2.0 site, would be awesome. Wait, that would be better for the UN. There could be issues on Israel every day dug up to the top. It would be, like Web UN 2.0. |
| Posted by: bombay 2008-05-30 14:11 |
| #3 I can vote for McCain if he goes for anything that lowers support for the UN. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2008-05-30 13:31 |
| #2 Grom's alternative to UN: every head of state should have email addresses & cell phone# for every other head of state. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-05-30 12:56 |
| #1 De-fund the UN and kick them out of the US. Set up a council of democracies that acts like a republic with checks and balances and full accountability and transparency. Then talk about helping the rest of the world and defending freedom. Until that time, corruption and 3rd world despots will continue to rule the halls of power. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-05-30 10:50 |