Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Are you kidding me? The UN is a vile, corrupt institution based on a flawed premise, as Claudia Rosett ably lays out, so how can we possibly consider making that institution in effect an integral part of our own government? Can anyone possibly believe that this administration intends to stand up to the UN, or will we start down our appeasement path? And now we see that the proposed nominee is all for sacrificing American lives everywhere that American interests are questionable at best -- just as Obama promised during the debates, with a laundry-list of conflicts he'd use American armed force -- everywhere except, of course, where Americans had already been fighting, namely Iraq.
Word is out that President-elect Obama will nominate his close adviser, Susan Rice, as ambassador to the UN, and dignify both the institution and Rice by exalting the post to cabinet rank.
This is a trainwreck waiting to happen -- the main question being whether, when the train goes off the rails, Rice will be trying to drive the UN engine, or hanging on for dear life to the caboose. Oh -- and the other big question being just how much a bigger role for the UN will cost the average American, not only in terms of money tossed down the UN spiderholes, but also in terms of lives endangered, damage to the American economy, freedom curtailed, and support to those who would inflict on the U.S. the kind of carnage we have just witnessed in Bombay.
Multiple reports say that Rice is haunted by the Rwanda genocide, which took place in 1994 while she was handling the Africa portfolio for the Clinton administration National Security Council. In concert with the UN, where Kofi Annan was then head of peacekeeping, the U.S. sat it out. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. Since then, Rice has vowed "If I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required."...
This makes no sense at all. For me, this serves as a marker, a tell-tale indicator of note, one that bears very close scrutiny.
It would make sense if, as Claudia Rosett describes on the second page of her report, the Obama team was inclined to spearhead fundamental reforms along with a strategic offensive in order to publicize the need for those reforms - but that seems highly unlikely within an Obama administration.
Richard Fernandez's commentary cuts to the center of things as well, Words Mean Something, excerpt:
"Likening the Darfurians to the Jews would require likening a certain ideology to Nazism and nobody is even willing to mention that ideology. It will be quite a trick to tackle the problem in Darfur without adding yet another ingredient to the punch. Besides, there’s that gun being brandished again, and its unclear whether Susan Rice or Barack Obama would do anything more than wave it around. The credible use of force can only be threatened by one power, the United States. Nobody is Khartoum is going to tremble in their sandals at the prospect of being chastised by a European army. “Credible force” is a synonym for US force. And that’s not going to happen either, at least not under UN auspices with Russia and China on the Security Council telling Susan Rice what they think."
Teddy Roosevelt is well known for his "speak softly and carry a big stick" dictum, while the indications are Barack Obama leans in the direction of inverting it - and that spells weakness, the type of weakness that those who live and die by the dictates of power are well attuned to reading and acting upon in both a tactical and strategic sense.
Well, we've seen some interesting signs of the Obama administration to come. We've seen new faces and Clinton-era appointees; we've seen centrist positions (keeping Secretary Gates) and politically ambiguous ones (Hillary at State). So now we see a nice example of standard liberal let's-give-the-UN-the-status-we-wish-it-deserved thinking.
I have to disagree with the invaluable Claudia Rosett, however, in calling this a train wreck. When a train goes off the rails, nobody hesitates in calling it a disaster, and everyone knows what happened. By contrast, throwing more money at the UN may well lead to disaster -- I think it will -- but it's deniable disaster. (How many people insisted, during the 2004 elections, that we should just have let the UN sanctions continue instead of invading Iraq? They looked at the UN and saw what they wanted to see.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
For what it's worth, Daniel, I agree with your intention, assuming I understand it correctly, though to be fair to Rosett she did indicate a train wreck "waiting to happen."
The reason I feel it's worth a bit of pointed emphasis is that this is not the Carter administration, it's not even the Clinton administration, c. Oslo. To the contrary, at this present time wherein so many of the deeply seated corruptions at the U.N. are better known - certainly in relation to Israel, but in other regards as well - it's all the more conspicuous that the U.N. per se should be elevated.
As to Israel per se, given Durban I, Durban II, the manifest and less apparent corrupt uses the UNHRC and UNRWA are put to (Bayefsky's and others' reports), the concomitant kowtowing to and looking the other way when it comes to Arab and Iranian abuses, including abuses internal to the Sunni Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank, given all that and more it's an entirely different time than what characterized Oslo and its aftermath. "Saving the appearances" and pretending it's a bygone era when it is not no longer makes sense.
So, respectfully intended as well and not in the least to quibble, but to elevate the U.N. ambassadorship and thus the U.N. itself at this particularly late time seems profoundly incoherent and at cross purposes with a more firm grasp of moral seriousness and international comity/stability. Of course there are other ways to interpret this "elevation," but that's why, in my own case, the emphasis was upon the idea that it "bears very close scrutiny" (rather than a too quick and merely reactionary judgement).
The U.N. is in need of profound and thoroughgoing reforms, even of being discarded to some degree in favor of a "league of democracies" or some such organization that is better grounded and better oriented at this initial point still of the 21st century.
Oh, I agree about the systemic corruption at the UN; and a League of Democracies sounds like an excellent idea to me, particularly one with entrance requirements and the possibility of losing membership if those requirements are no longer met. The UN was a nice idea at the time, and in retrospect it was probably an excellent first step -- but it should not have been set in concrete the way it was, reflecting the post-WWII balance of power, and the institution as a whole has long outlived its usefulness.
Unfortunately, some people still seem to hold great hopes for the glorified debating society we call the UN... and sadly, President-elect Obama seems to be one such person. (Or perhaps other such people have his ear; time will tell.)
In other words, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, Michael.
Will Obama's "elevation" of this ambassadorship cause real damage? Perhaps, if the result is that the UN has more input in American foreign policy than it has had. After all, the purpose of a cabinet position is to inform and advise the President -- so, if we already have a Secretary of State to inform the President on matters of international diplomacy, what purpose would a cabinet-level UN ambassador serve, if not to represent the UN in lobbying the President?
Originally I thought that this was just a silly, meaningless move... but the more I think about it, the more alarming it seems.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
NATO has higher entrance requirements than the UN.
re: a league of democracies
One quick look at who most of those democracies would be makes it clear that it would only be a slight improvement in terms of its global policy, but would carry considerably more clout and legitimacy. Therefore, the idea could backfire.
On the other hand, if it were a trade consortium willing to set distinct trade policies for member vs. non-members, it could be a very effective tool.
That's a pretty low bar to clear, Eddie. I think my nine-year-old's theater group has higher entrance requirements than the UN. (Has the UN ever rejected anyone for membership?)
We could have an entertaining time, debating what qualifications should be necessary for admittance into a League of Democracies -- and what the objective standards could be for establishing those qualifications. For a start, I'd want to include items such as the following:
- freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to establish one's own political party should be the law of the land;
- civil rights for all minority groups, including women. (How to establish this objectively? Average salary figures, perhaps.) Countries with second-class citizens need not apply.
- at least four consecutive peaceful transfers of power, from one ruling party to another, leading up to the present time. Countries ruled by the same party for over 25 years need not apply.
What else?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
For a bit more clarity, adam, I used the conception of "a league of democracies" more for rhetorical effect, to point to a general direction and improvement and need for basic reforms, than to imagine such a "league" will supplant the U.N. or aspects thereof within any foreseeable future.
As to a trade consortium, that could be helpful, though in part the role of the U.N., given its founding, is a forum wherein idealized hopes are nurtured and forwarded (at least in theory), moreso than a trade or more practically attuned org. Hence a more practically attuned trade consortium would, in and of itself, not fulfill the "vision thing" that the U.N. is suppose to represent.
The most basic problem with the U.N. presently, into the 21st century, is to first recognize the corruptions within the U.N., the systemic or deep-seated quaity of those corruptions, to then adequately publicize them such that the public at large will become increasing aware, and then to consider fundamental reforms and, when necessary, supplanting some of the functions with better conceived orgs, from a new point of origin. I don't know how, or even if, that might be done as we're still at the initial stages - and not even the more germinal stages - of such a reconceptualization.
(And yes, Daniel, we are in agreement.)