When I look at the UN, I see a completely corrupt embodiment of an important ideal. Others apparently see something different, they see a universal savior that is able to handle every need. They constantly sing the UN’s praises. I’m surprised I haven’t seen any green yard signs emblazoned with “UN Saves” in certain neighborhoods, although I have heard many a person claim that if a nation would just let the UN in, it would be saved. Religion comes in many flavors, some more tasty than others.
Posts Tagged UN
All Hail The UN
May 11
What is the American organization that has performed the least well in Iraq? Overall, the UN has to win hands down for its unwavering opposition to any safety measures; the CPA (Coalition provisional Authority) has to be the least effective on the US side. The military seems to be doing the best job all around, not just security but interacting with the Iraqis and in rebuilding efforts. I suppose it should be remembered that the post World War II occupations of Japan and Germany were both military with generals in charge, but that isn’t the case in Iraq.
I think a lot of the criticism of the Pentagon’s handling has been reflexive rather than insightful. Yes, I understand there are areas in Iraq where unrest continues, and the Baathist remnants and possibly Al Queda terrorists are able to kill American soldiers. But it isn’t militarily significant. Could the military do a better job – sure, you can always do a better job, but I think they are doing a good job, certainly more than adequate enough to fulfill their responsibilities. And I think if the civilian side of the occupation was doing its job, the military side would be much easier.
When we turn to the CPA, we discover a systematic failure in their responsibilities — most notably in getting a constitution written and in getting the coalition side of the story out to the Iraqi people. Part of the problem may be that they are making do with a revolving door of short term civilian workers; part may be that it is the effort that the State Department is most heavily involved in; and part purely organizational: it was formed just this year, the people don’t know each other, and it has no tradition, training, or experience in getting the job done in the face of adversity. Its head, Paul Bremer, has just returned to the US for discussions at the White House; I assume he’s going to be motivated to get the job done. Whether or not he and the organization or up for it is another matter. It seems to be the one most caught up with bureaucracy, poor contracting, excessive reliance on American and non-Iraqi contractors, and a seeming lack of urgency in carrying out its responsibilities.
Go Ahead, Make My Day
Mar 17
The UN asked Iraq to disarm, but Iraq did nothing. So the United States put a gun to Iraq’s head and said “disarm punk”. Iraq made the minimum concessions to keep the trigger from being pulled. And when the US said not good enough, France via the UN said we won’t let you pull the trigger. So the US has now put the gun to the UN’s head and said “If that’s the way you want to play it, you first, then Iraq.”
Lest We Forget
Mar 5
Most people seem to have forgotten what happened during the last UN – European attempt to contain a tyrant. In a word, failure and mass murder. In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence (with encouragement from France) from Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia tried to keep both regions from leaving, and war broke out. After ten days of fighting against Slovenia with little success, Yugoslavia gave up on Slovenia and concentrated on Croatia.
Croatia had a significant Serb minority who felt if Croatia could leave Yugoslavia, why couldn’t the serbs leave Croatia? The UN imposed an arms embargo on the region to try to end the war, and not surprisingly it had no effect other than preserving Yugoslavia’s military advantage, and led to President Clinton aiding gun runners in violation of the UN resolution. In 1992 Bosnia also declared its independence, and it too was engulfed in ethnic war. The Serb minority, backed by Yugoslavia (which was now pretty much Serbia) was successful against the Bosnian army and began what is now called ethnic cleansing. UN peacekeepers from European countries were dispatched to Croatia and Bosnia to try and enforce the many ceasefire agreements.
In 1993 “safe areas” or safe havens were declared (ultimately six towns) by the UN and peacekeepers assigned to them. The serbs made preparations to take Srebrenica, and the Bosnian army complied with the UN resolution and turned over their heavy weapons near the city. The military commander on the scene, British General Rupert Smith, wanted more men, more airstrikes – more backbone. The military commander at the UN, French General Benoit Jeanvier, wanted to limit the risk to the peacekeepers. As the serbs probed the UN willingness to fight around Srebrenica, they finally provoked an airstrike when they actually attacked UN peacekeepers. The Serbs responded to the airstrike by taking peacekeepers as hostages throughout the region and then chained them as human shields at military installations. General Smith was ordered to get approval from the UN Secretary General before ordering more airstrikes, and General Jeanvier himself began negotiations with the Serbs. Reportedly, the two side reached an understanding – the peacekeepers would be released in return for no more airstrikes. After that, the Dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica stood by while the Serbs entered the city, separated the men from the women, and then massacred over 7,000 men and boys.
The massacres took place in July of 1995, after four years of UN handwringing and resolutions over the wars. Over 200,000 people were killed in Bosnia alone, thousands more in Croatia (I’m probably understating the real death toll). Starting on August 30, 1995, the United States led a bombing campaign against Serb forces, and on November 1 the leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia travelled to the United States to negotiate the Dayton Accord. In just over two months, the United states put an end to the war that had dragged on with no end in sight. The United States sent in peacekeepers who have kept the peace, unlike the unending string of ceasefires prior to their arrival.
The UN coupled with the Europeans compiled a dismal record of toothless resolutions, appeasement of mass murderers, and utter failure. So spare me any claims of the importance of Europe or the UN. On their own, they couldn’t stop a two-bit tyrant like Milosevich on their doorstep. In Iraq, they’ve decided to get in bed with a tyrant – selling arms to a murderous despot and selling his oil to pay for them. What tyrant have they ever felled without US support? Those may be unpalatable facts, but facts they are.
I suppose we’re all pondering the same simple question: if the UN won’t vote that a resolution has been violated, has it been violated? The diplomats there seem to agree with Captain Collins of the USS San Pablo (from the movie The Sand Pebbles) that what matters isn’t the events of the day, but how we record those events.
Iraq is in violation of numerous binding UN resolutions, most of which date to the end of the Gulf War. The latest, Resolution 1441, makes it clear that Iraq’s failure to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction will result in “serious consequences”. It isn’t the job of the inspectors to disarm Iraq, or contain Iraq, or do anything but verify that Iraq has disarmed itself. Iraq clearly hasn’t done that. The UN response so far has been to ignore its own resolution as to what constitutes a material breach and make up the rules as it goes along.
The UN is in the position of a nice parent with a bratty child. As long as the child knows that no matter how much mom and/or dad blusters and threatens no real punishment will be forthcoming, the child will continue in his bratty ways. He knows “I’m not going to tell you again” in fact means all I’ll ever do is tell you, over and over, and hope you grow weary of the sound of my voice. In the UN case, not only is mom unwilling to follow through, she’s trying to keep dad from doing anything either.
I happened to catch Saturday Night Live the other night. They had a skit where Bush announces that the US is no longer interested in Iraq anymore – they can do whatever they want, we don’t care. I’m not sure what the joke was supposed to be (a feeling I typically get while watching SNL which is why I do it so rarely now), but it got me to thinking, what would happen if Bush really would make that declaration. How long do you think inspectors would be in Iraq – hours or days?
A little History
Jan 24
The Midwest Conservative Journal is smoking on Iraq today. The only thing I have to add takes off from the remarks of John Howard (Australia’s Prime Minister for those of us who aren’t Al Gore) who said NATO’s attack on Serbian troops in Kosovo showed that UN approval was not a necessity for Allied troops to begin a military attack:
“Look at Kosovo. There was no UN resolution on Kosovo,” he said. “I don’t remember too many people at the time saying that’s outrageous. I don’t remember it. I’m not saying Kosovo is a model for what might happen here. I’m not suggesting that. I’m using that as illustration that people who look for a black and white outcome from the UN could be mistaken. In the end we could have a grey outcome from the UN and you then have to make a judgment on merits.”
Let me go a little bit further. On Kosovo, not only was there no U.N. resolution, there was no congressional authorization. The short history was there was a cold civil war in Kosovo, with atrocities being committed by both Albanians and Serbians – in fact it was the Albanians in Kosovo who originated the use of rape as a means of war in the modern Balkans, and you were more likely to be victimized as a Serb than an Albanian in Kosovo. President Clinton demanded that Yugoslavia sign the Rambouillet Accord or else, with a deadline after which force would be used. This is typically known as issuing an ultimatum. We knew Yugoslavia wouldn’t, couldn’t accept this Accord — Kosovo was not only going to be autonomous, it was going to be under NATO control and occupation, and under appendix B Yugoslavia itself could be occupied by NATO. Didn’t anybody remember that WWI started with an ultimatum issued to Serbia – again one that couldn’t be accepted? So when the deadline passed, NATO ministers voted for war, and President Clinton ordered bombing to commence, without any congressional debate or vote. That’s right the United States of America went to war, not on a U.N. resolution, not on a Congressional Declaration of War, but on the vote of NATO. Where were the cries of give diplomacy a chance?
And did we confine ourselves to military targets? No. Not only did we bomb civilian infrastructure – power plants, bridges, car factories, that could be argued were valid because of their use to the military, we bombed a Serbian TV studio because we didn’t like what they were saying on it. We targeted and killed civilians not because of their possible military value, but because we didn’t like their version of events. Where was the outcry? What would have happened if in the Gulf War we would have targeted Peter Arnett (like blowing up his hotel room at night) because we didn’t like how the Iraqi’s were using him for propaganda purposes? Don’t think too hard about that, instead, wonder why when the litany of why America is considered an arrogant cowboy country, we hear about Kyoto and not Kosovo.
So please, don’t tell me that Bush is a warmonger, or that an attack on Iraq without UN approval is illegal unless you said the same thing about Clinton and Kosovo.
Where’s the UN?
Dec 23
North Korea has removed the seals and disabled the monitoring cameras the IAEA placed upon nuclear facilities as part of the 1994 agreement to abandon its nuclear weapon program (which North Korea now admits it secretly violated). The only point in doing so is to reprocess the spent fuel into plutonium based nuclear bombs. What’s the UN response? It deplores the action. No word on what it’s going to do about it. Of course, all eyes are on Washington DC to find out what George Bush is going to do about it, not on Kofi Annan. Why would they be – without a real military to back it up, the UN is limited to making tut-tut noises and issuing bland statements. Heck, the new President of South Korea said that his country might remain neutral in a conflict between the US and North Korea – which I guess means he’d be happy for the US to eliminate the crazy dictator to the North, he just prefer that North Korea not kill any of South Koreans in the process.
We’re assured by many people reluctant or opposed to attacking Iraq that what we need there is clear evidence that Iraq is intending to build weapons of mass destruction in violation of agreements and binding UN resolutions, and then they would support a war. Will they support war as an option against North Korea, which we believe to already possess two nuclear bombs and is trying to build more in violation of UN monitored agreements?
