shotbanner.jpeg

May 27, 2005

An Immodest Proposal

Wonder of wonders, I actually had a decent discussion a few weeks ago in comment thread over at New Patriot re a post on Norm Coleman's mano a mano with George Galloway in the Senate.

The discussion was largely about the ineptitude and impotence of the United Nations. One of my main points was that the UN, when it comes to peacekeeping, is in general fairly useless, and in some cases worse than impotent - for example, Srebrenica and the Congo in the sixties. The only UN military operations that have ever succeeded - East Timor and Kosovo - did so mainly because competent military powers (Australia and the US, respectively) made it known that the UN would not be leading their troops into battle. Other military engagements have ended less-than-completely due to UN interference - Korea and the first Iraq war being examples.

Dykstra's response, to paraphrase, was "but they do so much good humanitarian work".

Let's accept for a moment that organizations like the World Health Organization, UNICEF and so on actually do a good job - by no means an iron-clad assumption, if you read Diplomad's rage-inducing narrative from the scene of last winter's tsunami, where the UN's incompetence at acute crisis relief was on large-scale display, but let's run with it for now.

So why lard up the good work they do (yeah, yeah) with the trappings of a world government?

Would UNICEF's work be any less useful or valid if it were merely a huge NGO? Does the UN bureaucracy and the trappings of its alleged mission help the WHO make the world any healthier?

Liberals: What would we lose if we disbanded the UN, saving the bits and pieces that aren't completely useless (or actively malignant)? Give the IMF, the WHO, UNICEF and so on an independent existence, keep their current staff and budget, disband the Security Council and get the UN out of the military business forever?

How would the world be any worse off? For that matter, why would the world and the people who rely on the UN's humanitarian bureaucracy not be better off?

Posted by Mitch at May 27, 2005 05:17 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I don't have time to go into detail now, but one should be circumspect about putting forth UNICEF as a bureaucracy worth saving.

Posted by: Will Allen at May 27, 2005 08:44 PM

SACRILEGE!!!

Disband the UN? You'll make some sputtering socialist downright speechless with fury!

GOOD!

As a teenager, I participated in a youth forum organized by the Methodist Church to study world hunger. We were all carted off to New York and trotted through the U.N. building for seminars on the subject. Of course you can imagine the theme: "World Hunger is the fault of the U.S."

Years later, when I was at Columbia in New York, I got a different view of the U.N. All those limos with diplomatic plates doubleparked in front of the best restaurants, clubs and theaters. Apparently, those folks who want to point the finger at the U.S. spent quite a few dollars at our best watering holes that could have been put to better use feeding their own people...

Posted by: Mike on Hilton Head at May 27, 2005 10:02 PM

I was going to post a rambling luke-warm defense on the basis that talking was better than fighting, but really its just another mechanism for tottering dictatorships to prop themselves up by giving them a place to propagandize and divert domestic attention. Libya on the human rights commission? Oh really. Let's just move the whole thing to Brussels and have African diplomats and European commissars fight each other over parking spots.

The real work of keeping the world stable is done by quasi-world governmental bodies like the world bank or IMF; backroom deals between industrialized countries with occasional US intervention when the more polite carrot and stick approach doesn't work or a small bully is trying to become a big bully.

There's only two kinds of countries in the world: those are are totally fubar'd and those who aren't. Keep control with the ones that aren't. Hell, bring back the British Empire and steam engines if that's what it takes.

I say keep the share of the money governments contribute to the UN the same, but let them individually choose where to put it or to even opt out and donate to NGO's such as Doctors without Borders. If there really is any functionallity the UN is needed for something else will rise up to take its place.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at May 28, 2005 11:47 AM

First of all, I think the solution to the UN is to revamp its membership/voting systems. Joe Schwartzberg (former U of M professor) has a good idea concerning weighted voting. This would give the US a bit more weight to throw around. His formula is based on population and money put into the system (and one other variable that I can't remember right now). There are big problems with the UN...it can be solved through reasonable reforms with the way power is shared. Schwartzberg is at the very least offering very good ideas to go forward with.

The UN is helpful for 2 reasons: 1. it offers a constant source for diplomatic back channels. It is always a place where countries can talk...no matter how hot things get. This is important. It's almost like a global clubhouse. This sort of thing was absolutely necessary for the cold war. Is it needed for the new world? I think so...you never know when a state-based threat could pop up with terrorists running around all over the place. 2- We need to let the world know that we are willing to play along.

I am not a "blame America first" type of guy. However, think about how we look to the rest of the world. We have thousands of nuclear warheads (big ones, at that), we have the best military in the world, we spend more on our military than (almost) the rest of the world combined, we want to make bunker busters and missile shields....we are a kick ass country. This scares people. When you are this big and powerful, it is in your best interest to let other countries know that you, at the very least, are willing to make an attempt at working with everyone (at the UN).

Posted by: cleversponge at May 29, 2005 10:14 PM

Still waiting to be deleted...

You people are true morons if you think the UN is a liberal problem. Jeezus fucking Christ, Chistofascists! The Repubs are in charge and you're still not happy. Get your brown shirts back from the cleaners and persecute some homosexuals already. We're ready for you.

Posted by: blogesota at May 30, 2005 02:32 PM

Blogesota,

You're not worth the effort of deleting. And I wasn't aware the GOP was in charge of the UN.

Please enlighten.

By the way, BS - I've put more of my ass on the line in DEFENSE of gays against persecution than you likely ever will.

Try to keep your brain from lighting on fire as your preconceptions (read: Bigotries) explode.

Posted by: mitch at May 31, 2005 04:54 PM

faithfulness.earthliness tightest!strider:louse cloudburst fluctuating crucible fowl,optima vindication, free texas hold em download [url=http://www.radcraft.com/] free texas hold em download [/url] free texas hold em download http://www.radcraft.com/ http://www.radcraft.com/ subgraph Riley microwords,beachhead climes free game download texas hold em [url=http://www.radcraft.com/] free game download texas hold em [/url] free game download texas hold em http://www.radcraft.com/ http://www.radcraft.com/ exhibitors flatus tools essay Bagrodia em free hold texas tournament [url=http://www.radcraft.com/] em free hold texas tournament [/url] em free hold texas tournament http://www.radcraft.com/ http://www.radcraft.com/ .

Posted by: free texas hold em software at July 9, 2006 05:19 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi