PDA

View Full Version : U.N.: What Is It Good For?



Sgt Schultz
09-16-2004, 11:43 AM
U.N.: What Is It Good For?
Turtle Bay dithers as Syria piles on Sudan’s Darfur atrocity.

by Andrew McCarthy

Why do we continue to participate in a vast international charade?

Maybe Sudan will finally be able to do what a couple of Intifadas and the systematic mass murder in Rwanda could not. Maybe the latest Sudanese genocidal atrocity, hot on the heels of the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal — not to mention the last Sudanese genocidal atrocity — will finally convince Americans that the risible, anachronistic, dysfunctional and quite likely criminal enterprise known as the United Nations is an international calamity that is doing far more harm than good.

Sudan's Islamic theocracy is a grievous, recidivist human-rights offender, as previouslyrecounted on NRO by Freedom House's Nina Shea (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/shea200406300855.asp) Having already succeeded in the extermination of two million non-Muslims (i.e., Christians and Animists) in south and central Sudan, the regime of General Omar Hassan al-Bashir, through its agents of death known as the Janjaweed, have set their sights on the western Darfur region.

There, the resident tribes, though Muslim, have eschewed the fundamentalist Salafist Islam (much like Saudi-brand Wahhabism) enforced by the government. (Islamic militants, it should be noted, have even less tolerance for what they regard as Muslim "apostates" than they do for garden-variety infidels.) In a campaign of murder, maiming, rape, and all-out terror, nearly a million and a half residents have been driven from their homes, tens of thousands have been killed, and the ultimate death toll, as Shea has reported, may ultimately exceed the 800,000 tallied in the infamous ethnic cleansing of Rwanda.

While the killing proceeds day after day, the U.N. dithers day after day. Initially, the Security Council spent untold weeks trying to decide whether what was underway in Darfur was really, strictly speaking, a "genocide," or merely a lot of people being killed in the same place at the same time. Perhaps they should simply have asked General Bashir, who plainly has some expertise in this area. Nonetheless, having evidently exhausted that legalism as a justification for its torpor, the U.N. is onto yet another scintillating exercise.

As reported in the New York Times on Wednesday (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/international/africa/15nations.html?pagewanted=all) the United States has placed on the table a resolution (you may recall how well those worked in Iraq) raising the specter of "sanctions" (oh my goodness) against Sudan's sharia-crats and its oil industry if they persist in their unseemly failure to hold the barbarity in Darfur down to a dull roar. But the resolution is stalled over a knotty problem.

The original U.S. draft, you see, said the Security Council "shall take" action in the very likely event Sudan ignores it. This upset China and Pakistan, which do big oil business with Sudan. So those two notoriously staunch defenders of human rights are holding out for "shall consider" — the semantic leap from take to consider possibly being enough to persuade them not to vote for, but to abstain from, the resolution so it can go through. In any event, we've now courageously agreed to modify this latest exercise in hand-wringing, ensuring for Darfur whatever additional weeks of delay it requires 15 disparate countries to consider sanctions, versus to decide what sanctions to take. The shrill sound you just heard was either the last dying screams of another western tribesman or General Bashir laughing his head off — I'm not sure.

Meanwhile, another story Tuesday, this one from Germany's Die Welt. (The original German report is here (http://www.welt.de/data/2004/09/15/332689.html) ; an English report about it, from Agence France Presse can be found here (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/106666/1/.html) .) Sudan, you'll be shocked to learn, is closely allied with another bastion of human dignity, Syria. In June — amid the Darfur extermination — the pair apparently drilled in joint military exercises. Exactly what tactics were they practicing? According to the German report, Syria, at Sudan's suggestion, used Darfur residents as human guinea pigs for chemical weapons testing — in furtherance of the two nations' quest to become WMD powerhouses. Dozens are said to have been murdered.

I should mention the widely reported hypothesizing that Syria may have received chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein's deposed regime in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq; that Syria is undoubtedly assisting the Baathist element of the Iraqi terrorist resistance; that the CIA and international proliferation experts have recently expressed concerns (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1167096,00.html) that Syria is actively attempting to develop nuclear weapons to go with its already thriving chemical program; and that, for all the attention grabbed by Hamas and Arafat, it is Syria that may pose the greatest immediate, existential threat to Israel. But if I mentioned those things, I might be taken by unnamed intelligence sources for a Likud-controlled neocon who should be investigated by the FBI on suspicion of believing Iran is dangerous, Saddam cavorted with terrorists, and other equivalent felonies.

I would note this, though: I don't know if I'd be holding my breath waiting for Turtle Bay to plumb the depths of the Syria/Sudan chemical-weapons partnership. Reflecting its deep concern for the human condition, the U.N., you may recall, has an esteemed component it portentously calls the "United Nations Commission on Human Rights." The U.S. was, indeed, a founding member. But a while back, we could not garner enough votes from member nations to maintain our seat. We were replaced by...Syria. Evidently, other commission members like Sudan, Uganda, and Libya (a recent chair of this prestigious body) thought that was fitting. (See the account of Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.,
here (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-5-2003_pg4_13) .

Meanwhile back in Sudan, it should be noted that for all its energetic work to try, however ineffectively, to get the world to do something about Darfur, the State Department this spring made the mind numbing decision (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4105656,00.html) to remove Sudan from the list of countries considered uncooperative in battling terrorism. Anomalously, it kept Sudan on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. When you start thinking the state sponsors of the world's most urgent problem should somehow also be thought of as cooperating to root it out, perhaps you are keeping too many lists. In terms of the clarity of America's message to the world, though, we do seem to have come a long way from "Either you're with us, or you're against us."

Why were we clear then, right after 9/11, but not now? Because when we felt threatened enough, we knew enough to throw overboard the hypocrisy, the sanctimony, the America-bashing and the self-delusion of what passes for U.N. diplomacy. It didn't mean we didn't care about allies, or coalitions, or international relations. But it did mean we were not going to allow action in matters of basic, life-and-death importance to be fettered by an asylum in which the inmates — including the planet's most despicable despots — are not only running the joint but have run predictably amok while thousands upon thousands die.

The first and second Iraq wars, the G-8, NATO, and various other international conglomerations illustrate that we are fully capable of forming ad-hoc coalitions of responsible, interested, contributing nations to attack, with reasonable expeditiousness, the world's problems. The U.N., to the contrary, is running official, organized cover for the likes of Bashir, Assad, and Saddam.

How is it that we (whether the "we" is the U.S. or the world) are better off with the U.N. than without it? What is it internationally that we can't accomplish were we suddenly to refuse to pay the U.N.'s price of corruption, extortion, and distortion? If the U.N. can't stop a tin-pot like Bashir from a second genocide in a decade, if it can't stop its Human Rights commissioners from trying out their chemical weapons on innocent humans, what good is it? If it can't be mended, it ought to be ended.

Sgt Schultz
09-16-2004, 03:03 PM
Gee, 'ol Kofi wouldn't want to be influencing the U.S. Presidential election, would he? Also, here's further proof that Annan, the UN and others are now doing whatever they can to hinder progress in Iraq to spite the U.S.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
Kofi Annan Says Iraq War “Illegal”

U.S. Allies Reject Annan's Iraq Claim

By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Major U.S. allies on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the war in Iraq was "illegal" because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.

Annan's comments undercut governments from Australia to Italy that supported the United States on Iraq, often in the face of widespread domestic opposition.

The U.N. chief told British Broadcasting Corp. radio on Wednesday that the U.S.-led invasion did not conform to the United Nations Charter, which lets nations take military action with explicit Security Council approval.

"From our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal," Annan said. He also raised concerns that persistent violence in Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's office disputed Annan's comments about the legitimacy of the war. It reiterated that the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, had found Britain was acting legally in supporting the military action, citing three U.N. resolutions that justified the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Britain was a leading supporter of the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam, a war that followed months of bitter debate in the 15-nation Security Council.

Bush didn't comment directly on Annan's remarks but said he had no regrets.

"I was hoping diplomacy would work, " Bush said Thursday while campaigning in Minnesota. "Knowing what I know today even though we haven't found the stockpiles of weapons we thought were there, I'd still make the same decision. America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell."

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, which also supported the invasion, made no comment.

But Giuseppe Fioroni, a member of Italy's center-left opposition, urged the government to take a position.

"Other governments felt a duty to express themselves with clear words. As usual, Italy is an exception from which we would like to hear a position clearly and urgently," Fioroni told the country's ANSA news agency.

Analyst Germano Dottori of the Center for Strategic Studies in Rome said he suspected Annan was trying to undermine President Bush before the U.S. elections.

"The timing cannot be explained otherwise. Why would you make a statement like this now, when it is in everybody's interest to stabilize the situation?" Dottori said.

France and Germany, which led the opposition to the war, declined to reopen the debate that split the Atlantic alliance.

"You know our position," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said when asked to comment on Annan's comments. "We had the opportunity at the time to express ourselves very clearly."

French lawmaker Axel Poniatowski, a member of President Jacques Chirac's party, said France's reluctance to publicly react to Annan's position showed that the debate on the legality of the war is over.

"This problem has passed into history," Poniatowski told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "The issue today is how do we get out of the Iraqi situation and what do we do against terrorism."

But Spain — whose current government opposed the war and withdrew its troops from Iraq after being elected in March — said Annan's comments came as no surprise.

"We're not surprised by Annan's comments. That's what Spain said and that's why we pulled out the troops," government spokesman Javier Valenzuela said.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard — a staunch U.S. supporter who defied widespread public anger to participate in the invasion — said the military action was "entirely legal."

A previous Security Council resolution had warned Iraq to be prepared for "serious consequences" if it didn't meet U.N. obligations, but the United States dropped an attempt to get a new resolution explicitly approving the March 2003 invasion when it became clear the measure would not pass.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time — without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," Annan told the BBC.

British Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said she also disagreed with Annan.

"There have always been different views on that matter and ... of course I respect his views on this matter and I regret that we disagree with them," Hewitt told BBC radio, adding the important thing now was to help Iraqis achieve "a safe, secure, democratic Iraq."

Japan's top government spokesman, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda, said his country, also a U.S. supporter in Iraq, would seek clarification about Annan's remarks.

Annan said the wave of violence engulfing Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.

There could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he told the BBC.

Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer said elections will not be held just "for the sake of elections" and emphasized that returning peace to his country is his government's priority.

"We want to hold the elections in a safe and secure environment. We will keep working around the clock to meet this commitment," he said during a visit to the Netherlands. "The U.N. is supervising and monitoring and helping us a lot in Iraq preparing for elections next year. I think it is a little bit too premature to decide on this issue."

Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said he is determined to hold the election by Jan. 31, and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth has all but ruled out any delay beyond the Jan. 31 deadline.

knuckleboner
09-16-2004, 03:28 PM
that's funny...i don't remember the sudan problem being of much concern to anyone in the U.S. admistration, other than colin powell.

for the U.N. to work, it requires cooperation...

John Ashcroft
09-16-2004, 04:12 PM
It requires leadership.

I think old Maggie said it best when she defined consensus as "The absence of leadership".

You shouldn't put countries like Libya (or anyother piss-ant dictatorship) in equal standing with other Republics. And you certainly shouldn't have them chairing a human rights commission.

knuckleboner
09-16-2004, 05:03 PM
i'll give you that; leadership is essential as well.

but, you can't have unilateral leadership, always. getting any kind of consensus from 200+ countries and 6 billion+ people isn't an easy task. it's oftentimes next to impossible.

but it's a good goal. and one that we should work towards.

JCOOK
09-16-2004, 05:13 PM
We should throw the whole lot of them out of the U.S. and go it alone.Except for a couple of countries the rest of the world despises us and would like nothing better than to see America fall.They do love our money though.

tobinentinc
09-20-2004, 02:17 AM
The U.N. is all bullshit. It's an excuse for other countries to take our money, and build weapons, further socialism, or do whatever. The U.N. sucks period.

freak
09-20-2004, 02:40 AM
The only difference between the League of Nations and The United Nations is that the League of Nations was abandoned when it became obvious it was a failure. The United Nations still keeps chugging along in spite of it.

It is a worthless buerocratic body that has no relevance and would probably not exist without our financing it.

Someone just needs to bite the bullet, evict them from that prime real estate they occupy in New York and be done with them.