Fraud, Rape, Prostitution and Ignoring Genocide Not Enough? UN Ignores NK Refugees
 

(Yes, it's a cut and paste, but I think it speaks for itself and the Thread Title conveys my sentiments...)

The Real Refugee Scandal
It's a matter of life and death, not sex.

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:01 a.m.

So prolific in scandal has the United Nations become that it's getting hard to keep tabs. You can surf the channels, from rape by peacekeepers in the Congo, to theft at the World Meteorological Organization, to a Human Rights Commission crammed with despots; from inadequate auditing to botched management to wasted money to running the biggest heist in the history of humanitarian work--the Oil for Food program in Saddam's Iraq.
An aggrieved Secretary-General Kofi Annan has chosen to describe the reporting of such outrages as "attacks on the United Nations"--as if the problem lay in the reporting, rather than the scandalous behavior that is the real threat to the U.N.'s peace-and-human-dignity mandate. But at least a little daylight has prompted some acknowledgement from the U.N. Secretariat itself that there is a need, as Mr. Annan's new chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, just wrote in London's Sunday Times, for reform at the U.N. "through deeds, not words."

Fine, let's look to the deeds. One test of that promised reform will be the next move at the U.N.'s refugee office, where High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers resigned Monday over allegations that he had sexually harassed a woman who worked for him. The allegations were not new. The U.N.'s internal auditors concluded last June, in a secret report, that Mr. Lubbers had engaged in "misconduct and abuse of authority" by way of "unwanted physical contact with the complainant." This report was submitted months ago to Mr. Annan, who ignored the findings, and kept Mr. Lubbers on, until the press last week got hold of the document. In the ensuing flap, Mr. Lubbers resigned.

But that's hardly the worst outrage that's been bubbling at the UNHCR. If you believe in the U.N. charter's promise to promote "justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties," along with "the dignity and worth of the human person," then the real scandal--less racy, but colossally more devastating in human cost--has been the UNHCR's failure in recent years to stand up for refugees fleeing North Korea. The problem here is not, as far as I am aware, one of embezzlement or fraud. Nor is it on a par with any amount of sexual harassment in the comfortable Geneva headquarters of the UNHCR--however upsetting that might be. The true horror is the way in which the well-mannered nuances of U.N. bureaucracy, structure and management have combined to dismiss demurely the desperate needs of hundreds of thousands of human beings fleeing famine and repression in the world's worst totalitarian state.

The situation, by U.N. lights, is of course complex. For more than a decade, North Koreans have been fleeing their country by the only avenue even partly open to them--past the northern border patrols, into China. An estimated 300,000 North Koreans are in hiding in China today. They have a well-founded fear of persecution, should they be sent back. Testimony has stacked up high and wide--much of it over the past four years, on Mr. Lubbers's watch-- that if returned these refugees would likely end up starved or worked to death in the labor camps of Kim Jong Il. Some are murdered outright. One recent dispatch from a South Korean private aid group, the Headquarters for the Protection of North Korean Defectors, reports that according to sources inside North Korea the regime there just last month executed some 60 North Korean would-be defectors sent back by China, killing at least eight in public, in the northern city of Chongjin--to deter others from making a run for it.
Such would-be refugees have been dying faceless, nameless and scarcely even remarked upon by the world community. But these were human beings. They had faces and names. From what we know of conditions in North Korean detention centers, it's a good bet they were freezing, famished and quite possibly tortured in the hours before they were then murdered in public due to the combined and systematic state policies of China and North Korea.

Where is the U.N. in all this? Under the U.N. Refugee Convention--which Beijing has signed and the UNHCR, with its $1.1 billion budget, is supposed to administer--these North Koreans refugees had rights. The convention promised them not a return to their deaths, but at least safe transit through China to a place of asylum.

The UNHCR keeps an office in Beijing, with a budget this year totaling $4.4 million, to which asylum seekers have no access. Four years ago, a family of North Korean refugees actually stormed the premises and gained asylum after threatening to eat rat poison from their pockets if forced back out onto the street. Since then, the UNHCR has allowed China's security agents to better defend the compound against further visits by the people the UNHCR is supposedly in China to protect.

For years now, the U.N. policy in dealing with North Korean refugees in China has been one of what its spokesmen call "quiet diplomacy." The hushed implication is that behind the scenes, the UNHCR is in deep and earnest discussion with the Chinese authorities. No doubt. And there has been some help for a small number, mainly by way of easing them quietly out of the country once they have risked their lives by storming foreign compounds other than the UNHCR's. But the broad picture, for the hundreds of thousands, is a quiet but dire absence of any help whatsoever.

Ask the U.N. to explain its procedure for processing North Korean refugees in China. There is none. The UNHCR's Beijing representative referred me to the organization's Geneva headquarters. There, a spokeswoman in the midst of dealing with the Lubbers sex scandal wondered why it would be of interest at this moment of crisis to discuss North Korean refugees. "Why today?"
Why? Because after more than a decade of what this spokeswoman described as "low profile" diplomacy, the UNHCR, has failed these refugees, and done abysmally little to alert the world. Two years ago, Mr. Lubbers finally designated them a population "of concern," and there the matter sits, as people quietly die. With the UNHCR's top job now open for new management, it is less the new office etiquette in Geneva that should serve as a yardstick of reform, but whether or not there will now be deeds to save the refugees of North Korea.

where is the part about fraud rape and prostitution - ignoring genocide?where is the genocide?
Genocide? Look up Somalia.Guess who turned their back on Somalia?
Oil for food? - Where is the oil now? Who has the oil now? Who is getting the money from oil now?
Escaping starvation? Anything to do with 50 years of US sanctions?
Is this the same UN that the US ignored regarding Iraq?
Cheers!

The problem is, the United Nations is run about as well as the member states are.. Look around the world, average it out and you get the UN.

I've never before encountered someone so eager to declare to the world "Hi! I'm staggeringly ignorant of what I'm about to decry and I want everyone to know it!" Kudos for pushing that envelope.

Put down the hash pipe and do some research; learn some history, some context. The "part" about rape and prostitution has been in the news (even the MSM) for the past two months... prostitution rings run by the UN and rape of young women by UN personnel in Congo as well as other places within UN "control". Rosette refers to these things in general, as context for those who actually know anything about what she's discussing. Reading Comp. is not your strong suit, evidently.

The genocides (plural) in (1) Bosnia that the UN couldn't and wouldn't handle (the same one the Europeans called in the US to handle), (2) Rwanda that the UN did nothing to stop, (3) Darfur, Sudan that the UN has done nothing to stop -- DESPITE the US attempting to have the UN place forces in that region, which efforts have been stymied by Russia and China who don't want their economic interests threatened. Where have you been? Too busy with Anti-American screeds to notice what's going on in the rest of the world? And we're insular... yeah.

On the just-short-of genocide ledger, how about the UN's stunning successes in ending theocratic murder in Iraq or Afghanistan? Oh, they've had none; it was the US that put an end to that. OK, how about UN successes in ending sectarian murder and strife in Syria-occupied Lebanon? Oh, they've had none. North Korea? Nope. Even slowing down Mugabe's slaughter of whites and theft of property? Not even that. Hmmmm... What planet have you been on for the past few decades that these events haven't registered? Or do they fail to register b/c there's not a "blame America" angle to be played... like Somalia. Yeah; "nice try."

As for the serial stupid rhetorical questions -- the Iraqis have the oil now -- unlike under Hussein when HE had it and used it to grease every corrupt UNocrat that had their hand out (including Annan's son and number two guy)-- to the tune of more than $100 billion by even Volcker's estimate (you DO know who HE is and what HE's doing, right?; your having evidenced such staggering ignorance of the other issues, I feel I must ask.)

The democratically elected Iraqi government will have to determine what happens with their oil... too bad the whole "we're just in it to seize oil" crap didn't pan out; but the morons repeating that mantra aren't exactly the ex post self-examining demographic, are they?

Sanctions, speaking of context which you completely lack, were UN (that's "N", not "S") sanctions against Iraq brainiac, ... and had Hussein not siphoned off more than $100 billion (that's $100,000,000,000) there would have been plenty of money to feed the people ... oh, but regardless of money HE WAS STARVING them for his own political purposes (ever hear of the Marsh Arabs? he asks, expecting nothing). Even before there were UN (again "N", not "S" for the reading impaired)sanctions Hussein was starving, gassing, raping and starving (oh, did I mention that?) his own people.

Hussein stole his own peoples' money through oil-for-fraud, with the complicity of the French, the Russians and the UN. So yes, this is the same UN (meaning, effectively, France on the Security Council) that the US "ignored" b/c the UN wasn't interested in ending tyranny, suffering, mass murder or corruption on an unprecedented scale -- why? B/c it was complicit in all of them.

Oh, and by "ignored" you of course mean "secured 17 Security Council Resolutions" including one authorizing force to implement the others, right?

You're really flagrantly unqualified to speak on any of these topics, having willfully blinded yourself to the facts, or being simply incapable of knowing them.

CHEERS!

JP

Whereas I think that the situation in some aras of the world needs adjustment, and there are horrible things going on, I wonder just how much one "Superpower" can do. Granted, the UN is far from perfect, and like most organizations that do not progress, has grown more toothless and senile. But, it is a base upon which to build.

I remember the series "Babylon 5" which was a futuristic allogory of international (in the case of the series interspecies) intrigue. Failure after failure, but small progresses that added up over time.

To completely trash the UN would lead to a situation of even increased isolation in the world, creating more distrust and suspicion. Kind of like tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

Remember the Arab proverb: Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer".

And, as hard as it is to swallow sometimes, true change in a country starts from within, not from the outside. The people themselves, (like a twelve stepper does but in this case collectively, you get the idea), must reach their ultimate low and then act; the point where there is nothing more to lose. It is not bloodless, it is not easy, and it is not instant. Aid can be given, but the "revolt" must be theirs. Ownership of the operation by the residents of the area is important.

Hey Creature Cat, Are we talking about the same world here? I mean what are you talking about? Where is the genocide? How about looking in the present day Sudan? How about past day Bosnia and Rowanda. What did the UN do to stop those atrocities and a least in the case of Bosnia what country had to step in and actually do something? Somalia? What are you talking about? If I recall the Clinton administration tried to step in and quell civil unrest and our troops where dragged through the streets in the process. It was for that reason, the military failure in Somalia that Clinton was reluctant to take action for the genocide in Rowada. As far as where is the oil going? Who really knows the answer to that question? Who is rightfully entitled to it? Starvation in North Korea? Anything to do with a brutal dictator?

Bob -
Taking gajindabe's point a bit further, the UN is the sum of its parts ... and we fund what has become a virulently anti-freedom/anti-democracy/anti-American agency. Most of the Shytbag states' ministers and Abassadors in the UN enjoy rights of speech, voting and association at the UN that their own citizens do not enjoy at home.

I believe we ought to scrap the UN -- or move it to Brussels or Pyongyang -- and establish an organization of democracies. Why should our (collective, meaning the "West") efforts to promote free trade, democracy, liberty, human rights, etc. be burdened by the weight of fascists, theocrats, mullahs and other dirtbags whose interests are diametrically opposed to our own? The more freedom/liberty/rights there are in the world, the safer it is for us, and the more these dirtbag dictators/mullahs/theocrats are threatened.

And look at who chairs the UN Commission on Human Rights -- Syria and Iran? Why not North Korea or Sudan for God's sake. The esteemed statesmen on this committee evicted the United States from its ranks... interesting, no? The UN is a farce, and absolute inmate-run asylum. Do you recall that in 2002 (I believe) Iraq was supposed to chair the committee on its own disarmament? IRAQ?!? (I'd have more detail, but my UN notes are at home... so I might correct a date or name in here).

And I just don't go for the "nobody's perfect" rationalization for continued nonfeasance and malfeasance. It's correct to state "nobody's perfect" but I'm fully justified in saying in response "so what?!" Does that mean that we never call a spade a spade, acknowledge its utter lack of moral authority, or stare its corruption in the jaundiced, avaricous eye and say "no more"?

It's soiled its own reputation wherever its been -- running from Iraq, failing to provide even basic human rights for NK refugees in China, raping and putting young women to work for them; standing aside during mass slaughter in several African nations under UN care.... Who that has been the subject of the UN's tender ministrations would stand up today and declare that the UN is worth the effort? Even UNICEF has become a highly politicized feminist tool and scarecely effective.

An event in which the UN is most "capable" to provide some benefit -- tsunami relief -- it has been next-to-useless, and often hurt efforts. Though Annan will stand up and claim with a straight face credit for the work of the US, Australia (go Aussies!) and Singapore!! The UN did nothing to provide, coordinate or even assist in these efforts, but stands up and takes credit (oh, after "advising" relief personnel that they should wear the baby-blue UN tunics). Please, I beg you, don't take my word for this... go to http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ and read first-hand accounts of guys that were there, on the ground, in tsunami affected areas and the stories of the UN Vulture Elite. His archives will go back to late Dec/Early Jan when all the really fun UN lying, duplicity and inefficacy were going on. Just check out his January 27, 2005 post (avail. at the above link w/o having to go into the archives) for a taste of UNhonesty.

We need an organization of democracies; let the dirtbag nations of the world form their own club b/c they don't listen to us in the UN ... and the GA is effectively a pulpit to smear the West and a forum for cutesy little things like calling for the eradication of Israel (read some of the records coming out of the General Assembly if you don't believe me).

JP

Sometimes what you say sounds great.

Couldn't we just expand NATO as the democratic union?

An excellent idea Steve, but I still want direct access to the "dirtbags" so I know what they are up to. Excluding them is like ignoring the bomb makers in the house next door. Imperfect intelligence is better than no intelligence at all. The groups of "evil doers" out there are by and large successful because they are not members of a forum of any type since they are not officially governments. I would respectfully submit that removing countries we "don't like" from the "club" could create even larger dangers.

I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is an answer. I said it before; this is a time in history that concerns me more than any other I have lived through, simply because the lines are not clearly drawn.

JP: I do not, as well, believe in the "nobody's perfect" excuses put forth by the apologists. I am concerned about the death of a thousand cuts that can result from continuing attacks here there and elsewhere by small groups, draining our resources in an attempt to keep up. Maybe I am slowly becoming more of an isolationist. Seal all borders, become energy self sufficient, ban future immigration, build enough defensive/offensive missles to take out any country IN TOTO that has the audacity to make a pre-emptive strike.

I do not believe we should be in the business of nation building either. It is, in my humble opinion, silly to assume that, when it comes to styles of government, "One size fits all".

Friend of mine once told me: "My wife and I have a great relationship. I make the big decisions and she makes the little decisions. I decide what we should do about the Middle East, North Korea, the economy and so on. She makes the little ones like what are we going to eat, where we go on vacation, where we are going to live".


Prayer of St. Francis:

Lord, help me to change the things I can change

Accept the things I cannot change

And the wisdom to know the difference

Ouch......:D

Steve - NATO is an entity that has outlived its usefulness. We have no longer a shared strategic interest in Northern Europe, which is the predicate for NATO. Europe doesn't want us there and it makes very little sense for us to be there, militarily. Honestly, what has NATO done lately? Provide 900 troops and 3 helicopters to Afghanistan -- whoo!!! All of which helicopters have already returned to their home -- Turkey.

I believe we need a new institution, not tied to old, stale "Cold War" principles (like representation on the Security Council is -- FRANCE is a world power deserving of a Security Council veto, but Japan and India aren't. Yeah....). NATO is on its way out, and to try to graft new responsibilities onto a Northern European agency to try to salvage it is unwise. Especially in that this will not necessarily be just for Anglo-Saxon "whites". India must participate, as should Japan, Australia, Turkey, Mexico and Canada ... as equals. What we need is specifically not an EU-esque, anti-democratic, bureaucracy-for-bureaucracy's sake, self-perpetuating bloated deception with a 1000 page constitution. And, good news for all concerned, the EU should have one seat, as it purports to speak for all the interests of Europe, so it's relative "power" to move things toward Euro-centric pacifism and relativism would be tempered.

Bob - Do you really believe this "keep your enemies closer" pablum that we learn any more about what the dirtbags are up to just b/c of the UN? How, pray tell, do we find out more from the UN -- and I mean exactly the United Nations -- than we do from other sources? Maybe you know how, but I don't, so if you know specifically how, let me know. I'm not intending to be snide here; I'm willing to be educated on this point, but I'm very skeptical right now.

Strangely, you acknowledge that many of the evil (no quotes) doers out there are extra-statal entites; they're not governments and won't and don't have ambassadors or ministers. However, many members of the UN (including one or two on the Security Council, whose single opinions become de facto what the "UN" has to say to the small minded) want to treat these terrorist groups with the same protection and deference under international law that a soverign government of a real territory would receive. It's preposterous.

I like your friend's quote. :D

I don't believe, however, that we're trying to force a "one size fits all" government on the rest of the world. Iraq's government is not particularly similar to ours -- it's more Parliamentary than our system -- and we're not crying foul. Nor are we complaining that more muslim/islamist forces than perhaps we'd prefer will be part of that representative government. It is their government, after all. Afghanistan did their own thing and it's working very very well. How do I know it's going so well? B/c we're not hearing about it on the news. I'm not kidding. Good news is not news for MSM under this admin.

As far as "Nation Building", well its earlier, Clintonian iteration was a feel-good op for international support that, IMHO, received the minimum amount of commitment required in order to be able to "say" we were doing the "right thing", whether any "thing" got done or not. What we're doing today is unfortunately also called "Nation Building" though I think our motivation and commitment are vastly different, as are the results.

I can't change the dirtbag states through the UN -- that's for damned sure. Why does that wisdom elude so many folks?

JP

So who do we invite into this new world union?
Do the old Europenas belong?
Do we start with the major economic powers first, would that include China since they seem to have a big investment in us?

Sorry, missed that sentence on giving EU one seat. How about the other nations over there?

Steve -- My personal view is that we have a League of Democracies. Yes, I know there is something of a "spectrum" as to what constitutes a democracy, but that kind of thing can be worked out.

As far as China, it's not democratic by any Euclidian standard, so it's out. But size won't matter. The smallest, struggling African democracies would be welcome to join, as would any truly democratic (even if impoverished) nation.

As for EU members, I suspect w/o knowing that the EU would attempt to pre-empt their members from acting in any sovereign capacity such as this.

It's not exactly a secret that the EU is very anti-democratic (it does not like to have EU membership or the acceptance of the Euro put to public referendum, but prefers to have each country's legislature vote on such matters w/o each citizen-to-be having an opportunity to vote -- Where's the "Let Every Vote Count" outcry from our disenfranchisement industry?). I imagine the UK would still want a seat in this LoD; and many former Soviet Bloc countries might as well.

You can forget Fra and Ger even making overtures about joining b/c the scope of the conflict-of-interests between the EU's power centralization/aggrandization and the EU's two motivating forces joining an autonomous international entity would warp gravity.

Plus, France would see it as a US power-play, as they see everything as a US power-play...

We (the democracies) have the money anyway -- how much does Saudi Arabia or the rest of the Islamofascist world provide in dues to the UN? How much to they give to disaster relief --even disaster relief for MUSLIMs, for Mohammed's sake. Next to none. We democracies get things done, we innovate, we have goals and aspirations for the world (aside from conquest and united worship of Allah under some 12th century theocracy).

We're really the only nations that DO anything anyway, so why do we need the dirtbags right in our living rooms, eating all our food, drinking all our booze, consuming our culture, utilizing the technology that we -- and definitively not they -- developed, impregnating the domestic animals and then telling us how much we suck and how great they are.

Get out of our penthouses and go back to your moms' basement apartments, your squalor and filth, dirtbags. No matter how gracious or generous we have been or will be (witness Egypt for a prime example) you're going to blame us for your plight, steadfastly refusing to take responsibility for your own actions that keep you oppressed ... we don't need you doing it in our home any more.

JP

I'll bet you guys also think the Catholic Church is an organization of pedophiles that exists for the purpose of having sex with young boys. I'm not making excuses for the UN, but just saying that if you want to villify some organization, just get a list of its embarrasments and pretend that's all they do.

Also, the existence of a UN or NATO just gets in the way of a nation that just recently has found itself in the position of being the world's only superpower, and that has served notice on the rest of the world that its guns will be used to change the political structure of any and all countries it wants to.

In this case, the "administration" needed to make a fall guy out of the UN. Looks like the propaganda machine is getting NOX through a Paxton Supercharger, and you guys are falling right down that shaft. Sure, the UN has some embarrasments. Let's toss them out now, since we had to exit from that organization anyway in order to autocratically invade a sovereign nation.

Some of you know I protect workers. Sometimes that has involved enforcing regulations. I have always worked for organizations that are an "open book." That is, for the price of an envelope, stamp and slip of paper, you can get pretty much any record in my office. Not so with the private businesses I deal with. They whine about impending bankruptcy, but I've never seen or heard of them opening their books for overall inspection. In fact, I rarely see businesses comply with state or federal law in terms of producing payroll records. Do you guys think that government organizations are the only ones behaving badly? Or could it be that private companies have AT LEAST as many skeletons in the closet, but that they are simply not subject to public records laws?

So, you have some choices. One is:

THINK.

The other is to light a torch and march up the hill to kill the monster you've heard about.

I like Mark Steyn's analysis about the UN.

Steyn on the UN

The UN is a waste of time and money. There are better ways to get things done worldwide.

One mark of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and hoping for a different result.

Hoping the UN will someday contribute is crazy talk.

"I bet you guys think the Catholic Church is..."

You lose. Now how about you stop trying to make us into "monsters" by this old, tired demonizing of those whom you oppose (do you have only THAT arrow in your quiver?), and deal with the arguments presented. The UN has no moral authority to do its "job" around the world and has shown absolutely no desire to straighten itself out and purge itself of corruption, no matter how often Kofi has said it's time for "actions not words" to clean up the UN.

Though Kofi's serial pledges to do better have worked as an extreme soporific, thoroughly mollifying the Left, who would rather flat-out ignore what's wrong with the UN, or excuse it in a "nobody's perfect" apologia such as your own, than take action to fix the problems.

Why no liberal/feminist screams of outrage about young girls being raped or forced into prostitution by the UN? B/c it's just a "problem" and everybody's got them?

The UN UNmade itself into what it's become today, including having a dirtbag like Mohamed alBaradei release false information on the eve of a Presidential election with the hopes of influencing the outcome of such election, having Kofi Annan sit on a report explict about one of his senior people sexually harassing a woman, calling the charges "unfounded" in spite of such report, having Kojo Annan complicit in the oil-for-fraud scandal at one of the entities responsible for auditing Hussein's compliance with the rules, etc. etc. etc. These things are matters of public record, they're facts. We Think, you IGNORE and DISSEMBLE.

JP

No matter how much it reflects the reality of the world's haves and have nots, it just seems a little rich to be proposing an elite group of countries charged with governing the world ... and including "Democracies" in its name. It couldn't be any less democratic.

The League of Democracies would simply divide the world into "us" and "them". I actually think this is what you want, but I think it is a terrible idea.

If not actively included, I would imagine a lot of the remaining countries would sorta shrug their shoulders and do things their own way. Actually, that's pretty much what they do now.

When the "League of Democracies" invited themselves in to "fix" the problems in these countries - sometimes (not always) - I think that the countries in question might resent it. Kinda like many countries resent the US meddling (good intentions or not) in their business.

Supe -- Look at it this way (forget Left and Right for a minute)... did you read the article? If what Rosett said about the UNHCR in China is true, the UN has abdicated its actual and moral authority on these matters... SOMEbody has got to pick up the torch.

Cliff Notes:
NK asylum seekers in China (who will likely be killed if sent back to NK) are not allowed into the UNHCR office in Beijing -- the UNHCR has "allowed China's security agents to better defend the compound against further visits by the people the UNHCR is supposedly in China to protect."

The UN refuses to administer the UN Refugee Convention (of which China is a signatory) which promises these refugees safe transit to a place of asylum.

How does that not infuriate you? How does that not break your heart? More to the point, how can you defend an institution that has ignored, violated, abdicated, profaned and defiled so many of its "responsibilities" around the Globe? And many of those "responsibilities" have names, faces and families.

I can't believe that I'm coming across as being more concerned about the plight of North Korean refugees and others over whom the UN claims stewardship than you are.

France, twisting the Security Council to suit its own geopolitical ends, is one thing. That's France, who's had no empire and been able to do nothing but obstruct others for more than 2 centuries (why do you think they helped us vs. the British during our Revolution?).

This goes way beyond that kind of political gamesmanship (though there is a LOT of that too). This goes to: why have a UN? Not why have international agencies, but why continue to allow the United Nations to exist when it doesn't do anything to justify its existence (except present France with a forum to play spoiler and the dirtbags with one to take shots at their host and source of foreign aid?).

Just name me five things the UN does and has done right, and, if you can, why those 5 things can't be done separately, privately, or under the auspices of a new organization.

JP

Just to add, I think it is the UN's inclusiveness that provides its legitimacy - and precisely why uni- or multi-lateral action without UN involvement lacks it. That the UN does a poor job isn't the point.

Cam -
When did I ever say anything about "governing the world", much less "elite?" Are you actually reading what I write or just kind of skimming, looking for "points" to be contrary about?

I expressly said EVERY democracy is invited. Please provide logical proof of how that "couldn't be any less democratic" b/c such overbroad, conclusory statements, predicated on mischaracterizations of what I said just fascinate the hell out of me. Not the statements, but that someone can make them w/o thinking them through first ... so you must've, right? Thought it through, first. Please ... prove away.

You are right that the dirtbags are doing whatever they want now anyway ... so why give them the veneer of legitimization of the UN? Why allow them to pass UN "guidance" or "resolutions" calling for the extermination of Israel? Why give them a seat at the table at all?

There is no necessary "right" to participation in any organization-- South Africa can't just show up and demand that SEATO does what SA wants, or that SA gets a seat at the table to begin with. Why don't we -- big bullies that we Yanks are, shove our way onto the OPEC board? What? We've no "right" to be there? No Way! You mean our "wants" aren't immediately and immutably transmogrified into "rights"?!?! Hummmmm... we must not be the third world.

There will be no right to participation in the LoD without the internal right in each country to self-determination. Other than that, this "inviting themselves" in to other countries crap is all in YOUR head, not mine, and says a lot more about you than about me, democracy or the power of democracies to work together.

The UN invites itself in to a lot of places ... and makes quite a hash of the places it goes. Hmmmmm, I must have missed all your posts that were critical of the UN taking international action, b/c you're evidently so opposed to it in principle. Oh, come on, you know this is the same UN with Syria and Iran chairing committees on human rights ... the same UN where Sudan's vote has the same actual and moral authorityas Australia's. The same UN whose inviting itself into countries evidently doesn't bother you so much.

Or is it that it's OK for this corrupt relic of multi-culti idealism, that is fraught to the core with anti-freedom bile and idiocracies, to go into, say Rwanda or Bosnia or Congo, where it'd be evil and "unimaginably anti-Democratic" for a League of Democracies to go in to such places.

As for your last statement, I can assure you that the US resents it when other countries meddle with our interests. Oh, but we're the ones who always have to understand the other guys and subordinate our interests to theirs ... or they'll cry.

Too bad. We have interests as well, and the primary difference between us and the rest of the world is, we can do something about them; the primary difference between us and the rest of the powers in history is, we do so very infrequently, with caution, and leave when we're finished.

JP

Keep the UN as a forum.

"and establish an organization of democracies." that's responsible for nation building.

Ron -
It can have the name "UN" but as an organization of any authority, it's done. Keep it as a NATO-like "forum", but get it the Hell out of my country. Paris seems like a medium well suited for these viruses.

Nation building -- perhaps, but not in the Clintonian sense, and not as its exclusive project.

Democracies are by nature fairly answerable (more so than the alternatives, anyway), so I'd expect their agencies to be structured in an answerable fashion which would be an immeasureable improvement over the current situation, where answerability approaches zero.

OK, gotta go teach a steak-cooking course! Mmmmmmm. Steak.

JP

If you're not in the LoD, you'd feel like the LoD was governing the world. Half the world already feels that about the US. Perhaps I should have used "policing" rather than "governing". I think my point still stands.

I think China is the best demonstration of why it is unrealistic - they aren't going to change to being a democracy just so they can be included in the LoD, and they already do what they ought to fairly selectively WRT the UN (what I suspect is the real problem behind the UN's failure in China with the NK refugees).

Excluding them from the organisation is hardly likely to IMPROVE the situation. Excluding them from the organisation then trying to make them agree to abide by the LoD's edicts on proper behaviour seems even more doomed to failure.

I do think the UN has made a terrible job of a lot of things. However, I don't think this is a reason to abandon it. I think it can be fixed - and I think it would require a concerted effort from the very same countries who would make up the LoD. It would probably require less effort than starting from scratch on LoD too.

But I think as an organisation which included all countries, the UN can be more effective, and more legitimate, than a LoD.

How many times do I have to tell you to relax, JP?

Frankly, JP, you seem to know much more about this situation than I do. And if I took the time to read up, I'd probably be incensed at the behavior of the UN. So, I'm not arguing with your negative judgement.

But I also think considerations such as those outlined by Cam need to be respected. Frankly, JP, your nation's leader could give a **** about what people think in countries that disagree with him. And his followers similarly are entirely dismissive of the kinds of concerns Cam raises. So, I have little hope that my country is going to put together any meaningful participation in a multinational organization, unless it is an organization of puppets set up to help Dubya, and folks like him, with their imperialistic agenda.

Frankly, if there is a country that has essentially controlled the UN, it is......well........who would that be?

When a CEO has to suddenly lay off 30,000 employees, I conclude that somebody screwed up, and it's fair to say I'm not likely to pin a medal on that CEO. Similarly, my country was in the UN, did not manage it properly, then abdicated just in time to invade a sovereign nation.

And now, we're busy talking about how terribly was the behavior of the UN.

Candidly, I have opportunities each day to discuss who messed up and how they messed up and how much trouble that has caused. I just don't go there. I ask where we are, where we need to go, and how do we get there. My mother was very similar. She could not stay in a room where gossiping was going on.

so, I think there are quite a few folks here who think they understand me, and do not. But again, I think those same people also subscribe to a fairly narrow policy path, and are not listening to the broader questions being raised.

When your only tool is a hammer, then all the problems will look like nails. You guys please stay real busy discussing the mistakes of the UN, or the mistakes of individual persons in the UN, and don't pay any attention to what else is going on.

And I apologize. I'm pretty disturbed right now. I jsut found out that a person in my industry, who I had a good relationship with, is probably now going to hold a grudge against me because he did not take a certain dispute to arbitration. He would have lost, and he knew that. So, I guess he's sore I did not exceed my authority and try to act as an arbitrator, which I am not. This was about a year ago, so I assume this guy will be a pouting little boy for the rest of our careers. And that disturbs me. Sorry for the harshness in my posts today. I'm sad.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker Are you actually reading what I write or just kind of skimming, looking for "points" to be contrary about?

Nobody could read everything you write - it is too hyperbolic, meandering and repetitive.

I expressly said EVERY democracy is invited. Please provide logical proof of how that "couldn't be any less democratic"

Because the premise you propose is undemocratic - it is exclusive rather than inclusive. Your entire argument misses the point of the UN - to invite ALL countries with ALL systems of governments to sit down and talk rather than fight. Allusions to corruption, wrongdoing, and bad decisions apply equally to all large and small organisations thoughout history - Great Britain, Enron, South Africa, Slovakia, Irag, the UN, even the US has had its share of stupid leaders, corrupt officials, and silly ideas. In the long run - the proper organisations outlast bad leaders and bad decisions - through democratic actions rather than autocratic bullying.

b/c such overbroad, conclusory statements, predicated on mischaracterizations of what I said just fascinate the hell out of me. Not the statements, but that someone can make them w/o thinking them through first ...

This is a pretty good description of your style of discussion.

You are right that the dirtbags are doing whatever they want now anyway ... so why give them the veneer of legitimization of the UN? Why allow them to pass UN "guidance" or "resolutions" calling for the extermination of Israel? Why give them a seat at the table at all?

Because the essence of democracy is in free speech and in the idea that the majority rules while the rights of the minority are protected. The fact that the US can withstand such silly "resolutions" and let them die in the open air for all to see while letting those with whom we disagree freely express themselves proves to the world the power and strength of a democratic organisation rather than its weakness. Your position flies in the face of democratic ideals because it does not allow for dissent from its ideological position and world view. It is, at its foundation, undemocratic.

There is no necessary "right" to participation in any organization-- There will be no right to participation in the LoD without the internal right in each country to self-determination

Without getting into the gritty details of "proving" one is a democracy - what happens when a recognizably self determining democratic election picks a theocratic slate of governing officials? Are they automatically tossed?

The UN invites itself in to a lot of places ... and makes quite a hash of the places it goes. Hmmmmm, I must have missed all your posts that were critical of the UN taking international action, b/c you're evidently so opposed to it in principle. Oh, come on, you know this is the same UN with Syria and Iran chairing committees on human rights ... the same UN where Sudan's vote has the same actual and moral authorityas Australia's. The same UN whose inviting itself into countries evidently doesn't bother you so much.

You have such inside and personal knowledge of everyone who works with the UN? Including all their motivations? Amazing. Are you psychic, as well? The idea that those who are representing these countries might actually be fighting the good fight from within - even in their own lands - at great personal risk - never occurs to you.

Or is it that it's OK for this corrupt relic of multi-culti idealism, that is fraught to the core with anti-freedom bile and idiocracies, to go into, say Rwanda or Bosnia or Congo, where it'd be evil and "unimaginably anti-Democratic" for a League of Democracies to go in to such places.

At last, a clear statement of purpose and meaning. You don't like "multi-culti idealism" and "idiocracies". And these represent anything different from your beliefs? I don't remember the US, or any other democracy bounding over to the African countries you list, to my regret. Why is that ? Especially after the successful military campaign in Bosnia and Slovakia - funny how that screw up isn't on the front pages anymore. I guess there isn't enough killing or maybe there's too much corruption?

As for your last statement, I can assure you that the US resents it when other countries meddle with our interests. Oh, but we're the ones who always have to understand the other guys and subordinate our interests to theirs ... or they'll cry.

Too bad. We have interests as well, and the primary difference between us and the rest of the world is, we can do something about them; the primary difference between us and the rest of the powers in history is, we do so very infrequently, with caution, and leave when we're finished. JP


Ah, the heady air of arrogance. It is so exhilirating.

"Infrequently" Chile, Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, Irag, Panama, Venezuela, Columbia, Philippines, Korea, Slovakia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Suez Canal, Laos, Mexico - I am only counting adventures - not commenting on their wisdom, ideology, or success.

Name a single country we've left "when finished" (whatever that means) that doesn't have a military base or economic connection to the US. Again, my comment is directed to the logic and truth of your statement rather than the political or strategic value of the adventures themselves.

Cam -- again with the "feelings" stuff? You'd feel excluded? C'mon. Such nations, if they can be ascribed feelings, need to be given some emotional guidance and told to grow up.

Re:China this LoD is not formed for the purpose of getting China to change, so the fact that it doesn't is hardly a flaw. The UN isn't getting China to change, nor was it established for that purpose. So what?

I also didn't say anything about their having to abide by any edicts... There will still be other multinational agencies and organizations out there; other sandboxes in which they can play.

At the root of it, you believe that having more entities provides more "legitimacy"; I don't. I don't see how having Sudan vote to approve UN actions anywhere makes such actions more "legitimate", nor do I believe that getting Syria's "by-your-leave" to liberate Iraq is a moral prerequisite. In short, dirtbag countries do not have any legitimacy to give (in most circumstances); it's "nice" when they agree with us, but not in any way required.

I believe that the democratic nations (which, by and large are those that have the money, have the freedom, have the means and wherewithal to do things) should have their own organization, unfettered by the dirtbags and their carping and procedural impediments.

Keep the UN, fix it if you think you can, but why should there not be another entity in which, if you want a voice or a piece of the cake, you've got to be a democracy?

Supe -- No issues here; I write quickly while at work and frequently don't have the time to edit what I write, so I'm sure it comes off as... "unrelaxed." Oh well. You and I have managed so far to get on OK. :D

"Imperialistic" is overboard; "Hegemonic" is more accurate, and I've got no problem with hegemony.

If there's been one country "controlling" the UN... I don't know ... who in the SC has used their veto the most. Recently, with respect to many important matters, it's probably a toss-up between France and Russia.

Somehow, France's opposition to the liberation of Iraq became the "UN is against it" -- well, with a little help from the public statements of Kofi "What Oil For Food Scandal" Annan. You don't blame the "UN" for providing France an opportunity to stymie the US it hates so much -- and you don't blame the small minds in the French government for using the only possible tool they had in order to act as international spoiler, which has been their only role for more than 2 centuries. But that doesn't mean you continue to subject yourself to that forum, to continue to be thwarted in this bogus venue of "public" or "global" opinion.

Russia, OTOH is pretty much keeping the UN out of Sudan (which may not be a bad thing, given the UN's rape/prostitution/fraud extracurriculars). They've got China on their side too, so effectively no international pressure is being brought by the UN to stop genocide. The US is acting on its own to stop the slaughter -- but, you know, those "unilateral" actions of the US are just agenda-driven, "imperialistic" aggrandizement.

I understand "fix the problem, not the blame" theory; I prefer it. However, the UN has demostrated, time and again in the last 5 years that it is interested in fixing neither the problems nor the blame. It doesn't want to fix itself from within, in part, b/c many of its participants whose jobs/careers/identity/power exist solely b/c of the existence of the UN would find themselves "disenfranchised". Seriously, who has sufficient incentive in the UN to turn it upside down and break a lot of rice bowls?

And it doesn't have to fix itself b/c it's not answerable to anybody. Think about it for a second:

If the US says "you're all screwed up and you must heal thyself, oh World Physician" then the pinhead chorus strikes up with "Oh, the US is just anti-UN" or "The US is trying to influence the UN to its benefit, which by definition is to the detriment of everyone else". If the US then replies "No, we're not anti-UN, but we are anti-rape, anti-forced prostitution, anti-billions of dollars of fraud, anti-graft, anti-corruption and anti-incompetence" the response is something on the order of "lalalalala I can't hear you, you're just anti-UN lalalalala the US hates the UN lalalalala."

Why would a country like France want to fix the UN? The way it is right now, it's not like the UN squanders a lot of French money, and the UN's screw-ups help abominable France's actually imperialist actions in Ivory Coast and elsewhere stay under the radar. Plus, the way it's structured now, the UN provides France with the perfect forum to thwart and vex the US while taking no responsiblity for anything. France can maintain its perennial petulent adolescence, with a Veto. Great!

Who else is going to hold the UN's feet to the fire to change? Seriously. Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Mozambique, Benin? Who? If you know, please let me know. I don't believe it can be fixed; I think the little tweaks that Annan has grudgingly accepted are just rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs.

JDSKI-
Yeah, long posts ... but if you're going to respond, shouldn't you read them? And I don't mean Fisking, which is about the lowest-brow "technique", now avoided even by Fisk himself out of embarrassment, I'm told.

When has democracy been all-inclusive? Why should it be? We don't allow minors, felons or non-citizens to vote... does that mean we're "exclusive" in some pejorative sense? I don't believe so. We simply recognize that some are unfit or simply not entitled to vote; therefore are unfit and not entitled to guide or direct our actions through their vote. Of course they can still run their mouths... but "free speech" is not the only pillar of democracy as you hyperbolically aver.

And I understand the "point" as you put it of the UN, in fact, if I didn't "get" the "point" I wouldn't be advocating a different approach. I don't think inclusivity for its own sake ... as an end in itself ... is a worthwhile endeavor. And it's not worth sacrificing things like efficacy, answerability and action for.

As for membership/ousting procedures ... there's not automatic outster -- that'd be, well... undemocratic (gee, that's a really big, broad, open-ended word). Something like the members voting might be involved...:rolleyes:

I'll skip to the end, as my responses to your masturbatory interstitial rhetorical questions would likely be involved and overwhelm your brevity and style sensibilties; which standards you don't exactly meet. But it's probably good to have ideals for others that you don't meet; that's got to be exhilirating and do wonders for self-image.

I'll simply say that you've missed a few countries in a timeline that covers more than 150 years. So, yes, that is relatively few given the timeline. When we're done, we don't occupy -- not even our former enemies. We frequently rebuild ... ask Germany, Italy, Japan, Afghanistan or any of the others.

One bright spot however. This ... statement ... sets a new standard: " Name a single country we've left "when finished" (whatever that means) that doesn't have a military base or economic connection to the US."

Well, as every country in the world has an economic connection to the US, it's a pretty dumb question, no? If you confuse (i) "economic connection" or (ii) our maintaining military bases in certain countries with the permission (and often at the request) of host countries with "occupation" you're not very good at definitional distinctions and our further discourse would be meaningless.

JP

at least someone understands hegemony.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1109272379.jpg

Is it picture time again?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1109272760.jpg

The footprint of the American Chicken? Nice, kach. :D

JP

Slacker...

Really.....The peace symbol is an honorable one, albeit overused by some a few decades back. The premise of reason and logic and, yes, even appealing to the emotional, rather than "ready, fire, aim" is certainly one worthy of consideration in all but the most serious of cases.

I don't disagree with some of you premises, but I have to agree that sometimes you resort to hyperbole to make your point.

There is an old saying "You can catch more files with honey that you can with vinegar".

I offer the above with respect. I may not agree with all that you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Not my words.


" You media pansies may squeal and may squirm, But a fighting man knows that the way to confirm that some jihadist bastard is truly dead, is a brain-tappin' round fired into his head.

To hell with you wimps from your Ivy League schools, sittin' far from the war tellin' me about rules. And preaching to me your wrong-headed contention that I should observe the Geneva Convention.

Yeah, I'll last through this fight and send his ass away to his fat ugly virgins while I'm still in play. If you journalist wienies think that's cold, cruel and crass, then pucker up sweeties. Kiss a fighting man's ass. "

Wow.

Thanks for the sincere opinions, Bob. Hyperbole is one of the tools of the trade, so to speak, and it's not always appreciated, but I use hyperbole to provoke a reaction -- that's what it's for: "exaggeration used for emphasis or effect."

It's no excuse, but I do have to write what I write very quickly, given my windows of opportunity at work. Sometimes I'll go back and re-read some of what I've written and think "well, that would come across a bit strong..." or, more frequently "whoa, skipped a segue there..." and "enough parenthetical asides, already." Oh well. These are brain-dumps for refinement at a later time, if necessary. Sorry I can't give y'all my A game all the time, but I reserve the A game for my employer, who pays me for my A game, keeping me in Porsche parts. :D

I'm not trying to catch flies; and I'm beyond believing you can change minds. Stack up your best arguments and I'll stack up mine; let's see who wins. Maybe arguments' "winning" and "losing" strike some as primitive concepts, but I am a Darwinist, so it's how I believe things are. Better ideas succeed and grow, others atrophy. You figure out which are better by testing them. Hard. :D The sooner you recognize a weak idea and cull it from the herd, the less damage it does and the fewer of the more susceptible minds it has a chance to get a hold of.

Cam, Supe and I frequently disagree on matters and I've got no problem with strongly presented, even strongly worded, arguments. I do have a problem with the pseudo-smart, "mantra" arguments and won't suffer those. So don't bring them in if you don't want them smacked; keep them in the sterile glass case in your den where reality can't hurt them. I don't mean "you" personally, Bob.

As for the disagree w/ what you say, defend your right to say it stuff -- that's fine. I've heard a number of bespectacled sophomores standing in class or on lawns declaring their intellectual cojones in Voltaire's words. But, frankly I don't need you or anyone else to defend me or my rights; I can defend myself and probably do a better job at it than you can (no offense). What I am interested in are your responses to my arguments.

I do agree that the peace symbol was perverted by moonbats a generation or so ago. But a symbol is really only as good as what most people take it to mean, no?

JP

Ahh symbolism. . .

"B52 baby, way up in the sky. . . " (The CULT baby!)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1109279163.gif

"All we are sayyyyying, is give War a chance..."

JP

Haha - love it John.

JP

I'd have a bit more sympathy for that accusation if you didn't have a President who unashamedly acts on "feelings". Besides, if feelings didn't matter, why would the US bother to try and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Or send Bush off to Europe to mend the fences?

Countries have feelings too ;) We're all people.

I just don't think it would serve any useful purpose, and it certainly wouldn't have much of a mandate to do anything. I thought of it after my last post, but it is ironic that you can only complain about the UN's efforts in China because:

a) China is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (they wouldn't to a LoD convention); and
b) the UN has an office there (can you imagine the LoD having an office there).

Besides, what's the point in having a bloated, corrupt organisation (the UN) AND another less bloated (but prob still pretty fat), less corrupt LoD.

I say - Fix the UN. Make its internal mechanisms more democratic. Make prevention of corruption a primary goal.

Slack

I don't think we are really that far apart, but in my line of business, I have had training in something called "conflict resolution", which forces me to read "between the lines" of what someone says or writes, to separate the fact from the feelings. It is, perhaps the reason I find some trial lawyers so dispicable since they prey on emotion rather than facts to sway people to their side. Right or wrong take second place to winning.

As for trying to change people's opinions, why bother? If the individual is predisposed to a certain way of thinking and is consistent in that opinion, the best you can do is arrive at a stalemate, agreeing (in a civil manner) to disagree. Better ideas DO grow, but usually quite slowly, and are never enhanced by the stalemate of useless dialog. Go forward, implement ideas where you can and show by example that they are better than what is currently out there.

Just one person's opinion.

As for "feelings", allow me a hypothetical: I'd read recently that a strong majority of citizens in several EU states support the death penalty when given the opportunity to express their feelings (don't pin me down on numbers, but it was more than 60% of citizens in each of a majority of EU countries -- I'm not fabricating this, I promise).

Yet their "elected" representatives at a national and EU level continue to decry the US for its death penalty and fulminate about how much more sophisticated Europe is for not having a death penalty. Whose "feelings" are we to listen to here (I say "none", but you're wrapped up in accommodating feelings): the people's expressed feelings, or their elite masters' feelings?

If you're going to inflate the term "feelings" to encompass every possible sentiment (such as Iraqis' "hearts and minds") then it's a double-edged sword. If feelings have such scope, then they have absolute primacy. One guy whose feelings could potentially be hurt should/would be enough to derail any action, at any time, by any one. We all get held hostage to the lowest common emotional denominator. But then, being hostage to the lowest common denominator is a tenet of Socialism, so why am I surprised? :D

If you think Bush is in Europe to mend fences ... wow, I need to know what you're on, so I can avoid it. If I was that susceptible to suggestion, my home would be full of crap I bought on TV!

Ask Putin how mended the US-Russian fences get; notice how mended US-French relations become... Who needs who more? France or the US; Belgium or the US; Germany or the US; the EU or the US?

If the fences hadn't already been mended by their contrition, W wouldn't have gone. To W, international relations is not a function of "let's see how many treaties we can sign, and how many visits we can pay" like it was during the lip-biting, phony contrition, "love me love me love me", "what do the latest polls say that I should say?" Interregnum.

There is plenty of International Law outside of that on which the UN has put its imprimatur -- and more created every month, whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Saying that the UN is necessary in order to have (or enforce) international law is like saying you can't have (or enforce) dress codes without Brooks Brothers.

If the UN goes away (I know it won't, but a guy can dream, can't he?!?) the conventions which have its name in them do not evaporate -- they're not binding b/c the UN says they are for God's sake, they're binding b/c the signatories have agreed to be bound. It is a volitional act on behalf of a country to be bound to these things; and it's not only the UN that can enforce them. In fact, given the UN's dismal record, perhaps it really should be somebody other than the UN. Privatize it!

So much of your objections boil down to a misunderstanding -- I'm not saying that the LoD would hoover up all responsibility for international law, global policing, etc. etc. Just that a LoD could promote the interests of democracies -- have multilateral trade agreements among democracies, for example.

How such an organization necessarily means that all other areas of international law (such as Refugee Conventions) cease to exist or would never be worked out by another body/panel/organization is beyond me. The UN didn't invent international law, and international law got on fine without a UN for centuries.

Overpaid - I have the ultimate respect for your understanding of this situation and heartily agree that the UN and its cronies within are as corrupt as an uncontrolled organisation possibly can be.
But what escapes me is how the rest of us who do agree can change things via this forum?
Discussion is a great exercise, it is educating us and as here is allowing facts previously unknown to be aired.
BUT.....
Where and how and through who do we get things changed in the UN - they seem to be ungovernable.
Whats the project plan?