Iraq Seized the UN (Part I)
Joshua Muravchik, of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), pummels Kofi Annan and his merry band of rogues and misfits.
Two good things have come from our invasion of Iraq: (1) the United Nations has been marginalized to irrelevancy, and (2) the riff between the United States and Europe has widened.
United Nations Irrelevancy (Part I)
Within the world community, there are many that believe in the CONCEPT of the United Nations. (If you believe people are different than they are, the UN's declaratory principles are truly noble.)
The Preamble of the UN Charter states "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained," and "promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." (Reading stuff like this makes my eyes glaze over.)
Roosevelt believed people can be different than they were. In his Four Freedom speech, he told us the world community should have: (1) the "freedom of speech and expression," (2) the "freedom of every person to worship God in his own way," (3) the "freedom from want," and (4) the "freedom from fear," which meant a "world-wide reduction of armaments." (Freedom from "want" and "fear"? It begs the question: was he daft?)
Muravchik takes the UN to task for their failure to fulfill its mission, which is to "unite our strength to maintain international peace." Muravchik cites 40-plus years of UN action regarding Israel to prove his case. Muravchik tells us, the UN has acted twice (Korean Conflict and 1991 Gulf War) to maintain "international peace," and on both occasions defered the matter by "writ of authority" to the United States.
The fundamental problem is: the United Nations is an oligarchial organization pretending to be democratic assembly. By Charter, the Security Council (SC) was assigned responsible to fulfill the UN's stated mission to maintain international peace, and the General Assembly was relegated to a subservient, non-entity role. The SC consists of 15 member states, 5 of which were established as permanent members, and with 10 rotating members serving a 2 year term.
The Permanent-5 (China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and the United States) must affirmatively agree on a resolution for it to be passed by the SC. The P-5 have veto power over any resolution proposed.
Clearly, the Security Council is a dysfunctional oligarchy, which favors the Permanent-5. The P-5 must agree to act in concert or nothing can be accomplished by the Security Council, or the United Nations.
The undemocratic construct of the SC creates world wide hostility. For example, France was granted permanent member status; today, France has a population of 80 million; however, India with a population 12 times greater than France is not one of the Permanent-5. And therein lies the challenge to the SC's so-called international legitimacy.
In the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States went to the SC seeking a resolution authorizing the use of military force. France, Germany, Russia, and China were opposed to military intervention. France led the effort to quash a new resolution authorizing the use of force.
In 1999, we experienced a similar situation regarding Kosovo, where ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Muslims was being carried out by Christian Serbs. At that time, it was Russia that blocked SC efforts to be "seized" by the matter. Thus, NATO and the United States attacked a sovereign nation, that had not attacked another member state, without a UN SC resolution authorizing the use of force.
Muravchik cites Dore Gold's unreleased Tower of Babble, in which Gold highlights UN failures to act in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. In Somalia, a peacekeeping mission to provide humanitarian aid turned into a pitched battle, in which 18 Army Rangers were killed. In Rwanda, tribal war resulted in the butchery of 800,000 Rwandans. In Bosnia, thousands of Muslims were killed or driven from their homes by war. The UN's inaction in these three areas has been roundly criticized by many of the UN's staunches supporters.
Following the invasion of Iraq by America and its 30-plus allies, Secretary-General Kofi Annan was "seized" by visions of the impeding doom of his precious organization. Much ink has been spilled through the years discussing how to fix the UN.
The Global Policy Forum, who's declared mission is to "monitor policy making at the United Nation," states: "the [Security] Council [is] both undemocratic and often ineffective. The few powerful members dominate UN policy and frequently veto widely accepted decisions in order to further their own interests." (Imagine, my surprise.)
In April 2003, as any good bureaucrat would, Annan grasp for the thing he knew best, he named a "High-Level Panel" of international bureaucrats. As Annan stated:
When in doubt, get a bunch of washed out Internationalists in room, serve them tea and crumpets, pay 'em oodles of cash (in American dollars, only), and direct them to write a report that will be summarily rejected by those that must agree to surrender the power they granted themselves in 1945. (Kofi, you wouldn't have this problem if you were named UltraLord for the day.)
It defies common sense to believe any organization as dysfunctional as the United Nations can reform themselves. With luck, the United Nations was toppled when Saddam Hussein's statue fell. (Good riddance!)
Two good things have come from our invasion of Iraq: (1) the United Nations has been marginalized to irrelevancy, and (2) the riff between the United States and Europe has widened.
United Nations Irrelevancy (Part I)
Within the world community, there are many that believe in the CONCEPT of the United Nations. (If you believe people are different than they are, the UN's declaratory principles are truly noble.)
The Preamble of the UN Charter states "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained," and "promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." (Reading stuff like this makes my eyes glaze over.)
Roosevelt believed people can be different than they were. In his Four Freedom speech, he told us the world community should have: (1) the "freedom of speech and expression," (2) the "freedom of every person to worship God in his own way," (3) the "freedom from want," and (4) the "freedom from fear," which meant a "world-wide reduction of armaments." (Freedom from "want" and "fear"? It begs the question: was he daft?)
Muravchik takes the UN to task for their failure to fulfill its mission, which is to "unite our strength to maintain international peace." Muravchik cites 40-plus years of UN action regarding Israel to prove his case. Muravchik tells us, the UN has acted twice (Korean Conflict and 1991 Gulf War) to maintain "international peace," and on both occasions defered the matter by "writ of authority" to the United States.
The fundamental problem is: the United Nations is an oligarchial organization pretending to be democratic assembly. By Charter, the Security Council (SC) was assigned responsible to fulfill the UN's stated mission to maintain international peace, and the General Assembly was relegated to a subservient, non-entity role. The SC consists of 15 member states, 5 of which were established as permanent members, and with 10 rotating members serving a 2 year term.
The Permanent-5 (China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and the United States) must affirmatively agree on a resolution for it to be passed by the SC. The P-5 have veto power over any resolution proposed.
Clearly, the Security Council is a dysfunctional oligarchy, which favors the Permanent-5. The P-5 must agree to act in concert or nothing can be accomplished by the Security Council, or the United Nations.
The undemocratic construct of the SC creates world wide hostility. For example, France was granted permanent member status; today, France has a population of 80 million; however, India with a population 12 times greater than France is not one of the Permanent-5. And therein lies the challenge to the SC's so-called international legitimacy.
In the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States went to the SC seeking a resolution authorizing the use of military force. France, Germany, Russia, and China were opposed to military intervention. France led the effort to quash a new resolution authorizing the use of force.
In 1999, we experienced a similar situation regarding Kosovo, where ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Muslims was being carried out by Christian Serbs. At that time, it was Russia that blocked SC efforts to be "seized" by the matter. Thus, NATO and the United States attacked a sovereign nation, that had not attacked another member state, without a UN SC resolution authorizing the use of force.
Muravchik cites Dore Gold's unreleased Tower of Babble, in which Gold highlights UN failures to act in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. In Somalia, a peacekeeping mission to provide humanitarian aid turned into a pitched battle, in which 18 Army Rangers were killed. In Rwanda, tribal war resulted in the butchery of 800,000 Rwandans. In Bosnia, thousands of Muslims were killed or driven from their homes by war. The UN's inaction in these three areas has been roundly criticized by many of the UN's staunches supporters.
Following the invasion of Iraq by America and its 30-plus allies, Secretary-General Kofi Annan was "seized" by visions of the impeding doom of his precious organization. Much ink has been spilled through the years discussing how to fix the UN.
The Global Policy Forum, who's declared mission is to "monitor policy making at the United Nation," states: "the [Security] Council [is] both undemocratic and often ineffective. The few powerful members dominate UN policy and frequently veto widely accepted decisions in order to further their own interests." (Imagine, my surprise.)
In April 2003, as any good bureaucrat would, Annan grasp for the thing he knew best, he named a "High-Level Panel" of international bureaucrats. As Annan stated:
"The past year has shaken the foundations of collective security and undermined confidence in the possibility of collective responses to our common problems and challenges. It has also brought to the fore deep divergences of opinion on the range and nature of the challenges we face, and are likely to face in the future.The aim of the High-level Panel is to recommend clear and practical measures for ensuring effective collective action, based upon a rigorous analysis of future threats to peace and security, an appraisal of the contribution collective action can make, and a thorough assessment of existing approaches, instruments and mechanisms, including the principal organs of the United Nations."
When in doubt, get a bunch of washed out Internationalists in room, serve them tea and crumpets, pay 'em oodles of cash (in American dollars, only), and direct them to write a report that will be summarily rejected by those that must agree to surrender the power they granted themselves in 1945. (Kofi, you wouldn't have this problem if you were named UltraLord for the day.)
It defies common sense to believe any organization as dysfunctional as the United Nations can reform themselves. With luck, the United Nations was toppled when Saddam Hussein's statue fell. (Good riddance!)
posted by Tony Harrison at 3:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home