The United Nations: An Idea Whose Time Never Came
The United Nations is an organization that is steeped in failure, impermeated by corruption, incapable of action, and a force against peace. By providing despots and tyrants with a forum where they can achieve ‘legitimacy’ (see the long history of anti-Israel resolutions, the kissing of Chinese and Russian buttocks, despite the poor record of both nations in transparency, human rights, and the rule of law, and the current kowtowing to Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and North Korea), the UN acts as an impediment to effective action against aggressive nations that threaten their neighbors and prolongs each crisis needlessly under the rubric of totally ineffective ‘diplomacy’ that amounts to appeasement and the unilateral disarming of the good guys.
Kofi Annan has just conducted a totally useless ’negotiation’ with the President of Iran that revealed little and gained even less:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program but won’t halt uranium enrichment ahead of talks, U.N. chief Kofi Annan said Sunday after meeting with the Iranian leader. Annan’s two-day visit to Tehran comes after Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to halt uranium enrichment by the end of August, opening the door to possible sanctions.
“On the nuclear issue, the president reaffirmed to me Iran’s preparedness and commitment to hold negotiations” with Western powers to find a solution to the impasse over Tehran’s nuclear work, Annan said at a joint news conference with Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki.
This sort of toadying do-nothingness is infuriating; negotiation requires two partners, at a minimum, and Iran is not playing. We are past the stage that Kofi wants to revert to; it is now time for sanctions, or to abandon the UN approach altogether. Or, as Claudia Rosett says in the Wall Street Journal, it might be just as well to quit angling for sanctions and to seek partners outside of the UN framework:
Who at the U.N., exactly, would stop violations of its sanctions, should these be imposed? On the Security Council, veto-wielding Russia–now counseling “patience”–has already stressed its opposition to sanctions on Iran, with China slipstreaming along. Let’s just pass by France without further comment. And among those now angling for one of the 10 rotating seats on the Security Council is Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez. In his recent tours of the world’s thugocracies Mr. Chavez has reportedly garnered a boost from China for his U.N. bid, as well as a medal and the promise of a $4 billion investment in Venezuela’s oil fields–from Iran.
As for the U.N. Secretariat, which would be involved in administering any U.N. sanctions, if staffers have learned anything from the multibillion dollar Oil for Food scandal, it is that inside the U.N.’s opaque and diplomatically immune bubble, there are no real penalties for dereliction, duplicity or even graft. Not a single U.N. staffer has been fired, let alone charged with a crime. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is due to step down at the end of this year; but his would be the presiding presence during the shaping of any U.N. sanctions on Iran, and his successor will inherit both the same bureaucracy and a General Assembly which–if you believe Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown–shot down an administrative reform package earlier this year mainly for the perverse pleasure of sticking a thumb in the eye of the U.S.
It’s not diplomacy itself that I’m opposed to; of course, our problems should be resolved peacefully and not at the point of the gun whenever possible. With its dated ‘world government’ conceits, however, the UN is most emphatically not an organization that takes security concerns seriously. The UN was ineffective on Iraq, administering a multi-billion dollar fraud with Oil-For-Food (a fraud that it profited handsomely from), it has failed in the Middle East (are the Israeli prisoners free? Has Hezbollah been removed from South Lebanon? Does anyone doubt for a minute that Israel will have to invade Lebanon again, to do what the UN refuses to do, despite its tough talk?), and it has been totally powerless against the threat of nuclear weapons in the control of rogue states with terrorist ties, quite possibly the biggest threat to the world since the death of Hitler.
Our participation in the UN, henceforth, should be cursory and cynical. We should seek to advance only our interests, volunteer the bare minimum of time, soldiers, and money, and we should not spend another dime on the headquarters in New York besides what little maintenance is needed to meet safety codes. It’s true that the UN engages in some good charitable work, but even that is work that could be handled more efficiently elsewhere.
I tried to find one good counter-argument in favor of the UN, to provide a little balance. I can’t think of a single one. The UN has few accomplishments, and we’ve paid it a king’s ransom to dither and delay while our enemies grow stronger. No more…we must continue to seek allies and chances for diplomacy, but we’ll have to do so under other treaties and alliances, and with ad-hoc coalition building. There is no reason to continue beating our heads against the walls of this citadel of impotence.
One of the drawbacks to the relatively peaceful resolution of the Cold War was that the institutions established to keep world order at the end of WWII were not destroyed, as the League of Nations was in WWII. Now we have essentially powerless countries — the UK, France, and Russia — holding three of the five most powerful offices in the organization, while states that are far more powerful and influential — India, for instance — have no more representation than a state like Haiti. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
But, BTW, the US doesn’t contribute any troops to UN peacekeeper forces, last time I checked. And I recall a letter to Bill O’Reilley (back when I used to watch him) suggesting that the US construct an entirely new UN HQ — in Africa.
Spot on with your assessment. The UN has to be the most worthless group in the world. As you mention they are tremendously corrupt. Kofi needs to go. It is my opinion, that he is the major cause of the corruption in the UN.
I sometimes feel they are working towards the downfall of western culture or for the neutralization of the United States, which is what I feel the left wants. Times do change and at a minimum France needs to be removed from one of the 5 permanent positions. They no longer if they ever did have any real power at the end of WWII. Maybe they had it 200-300 years ago. As mentioned, India might be a deserving nation for a permanent position.
What is sad is that the UN could be a very good organization. Run properly, it could police the world and minimize dictators like Saddam Hussein to prevent any major problems and at the same time maintaining respect for the sovereignty of each nation. The UN has no teeth. They are a joke and their resolutions are worthless and these people know it. They never enforce them. Properly enforced, the entire Iraqi conflict could have been prevented. The US being the most powerful country in the world from a military standpoint is left trying to prevent major crises.
I do not know why we continue supporting the UN. I guess to make it look like we try to work with the rest of the world. Anyway, I agree. It is time to have the headquarters moved somewhere else. I am tired of paying for it. Europe would love to have it. I hope I live to see the day that this organization is dissolved. Spot on with your assessment. The UN has to be the most worthless group in the world. As you mention they are tremendously corrupt. I sometimes feel they are working towards the downfall of western culture or for the neutralization of the United States, which is what I feel the left wants. Times do change and at a minimum France needs to be removed from one of the 5 permanent positions. They no longer if they ever did have any real power at the end of WWII. Maybe they had it 200-300 years ago. As mentioned, India might be a deserving nation for a permanent position.
What is sad is that the UN could be a very good organization. Run properly, it could police the world and minimize dictators like Saddam Hussein to prevent any major problems and at the same time maintaining respect for the sovereignty of each nation. The UN has no teeth. They are a joke and their resolutions are worthless and these people know it. They never enforce them. Properly enforced, the entire Iraqi conflict could have been prevented. The US being the most powerful country in the world from a military standpoint is left trying to prevent major crises.
I do not know why we continue supporting the UN. I guess to make it look like we try to work with the rest of the world. Anyway, I agree. It is time to have the headquarters moved somewhere else. I am tired of paying for it. Europe would love to have it. I hope I live to see the day that this organization is dissolved.
Ignore the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from my previous post. I was cutting and pasting and it got away from me. Please forgive an old kitty. I turn 20 this month.
Aha…been hitting the catnip, have we?…
Comrades,
And don’t leave out the finacial disaster that the UN has been for New York City. The delgates flaunt their Dimplomatic Immunity, parking and driving as they please. It’s like a diplomatic mafia that does what it wants because it knows it will suffer no penalties.
Turtle Bay could be a financial windfall for the right sort of developer, although I suspect it might take some advanced technology to get the stench out of the facilities….. corruption tends to linger longer than decomp…
Respects,
Gwedd
I have to agree with Gwedd here. When I lived in New York, my apartment was two blocks from the UN. I was married at the UN Plaza Hotel, where I had my first date with my wife. Not only do diplomats park illegally with abandon, but there were constant demonstrations by one group or another. However, there was a silver lining in the cloud: the police presence around the UN was excellent. The only place in New York better protected than that is the Cuban embassy.
“But, BTW, the US doesn’t contribute any troops to UN peacekeeper forces, last time I checked.”
But we contribute the greatest portion of dues to the UN, last time I checked. I disagreed with Jesse Helms on almost everything, but his withholding of our portion not too long ago was the right idea, although a long time coming.
“Times do change and at a minimum France needs to be removed from one of the 5 permanent positions.”
They should be removed as a partner in NATO as well. France contributes virtually no troops and no arms to NATO – completely worthless as a worthwhile participant.
“…India, for instance…”
But India is only the world’s largest democratic state – why on earth would the UN want them there?
Totally off-topic, but one of the other residents of the apartment building I lived in near the UN was Keith Richards (although he moved out shortly before I moved in). According to the doormen, he was a quiet family guy who was often seen strolling his kids in and out of the building. As we say in New York, go figure.
Wonder if Keith had any sudden urges to climb the trees in Central Park…
About six weeks now until I see Mr. Richards onstage…I doubt I’ll get a chance to ask him any questions, though…