The Times of London reported yesterday on “an historic defeat for the West in the UN Security Council ” as Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have imposed UN sanctions on Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe and his inner circle. US UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad more correctly characterized it as a defeat for the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered everything from violent political repression to starvation at the hands of the Mugabe regime.
If you want to peg your irony meter, go no further than Daniel Larison at the so-called American Conservative, who trumpets this as a vindication of a provision of the UN Charter that purportedly precludes the Security Council from intervening in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Most people would not have guessed that siding with Russia, China, Mugabe’s totalitarian kleptocracy and the transnational legalisms of the UN was particularly American or Conservative (let alone paleo-conservative), but there you have it.ÂÂ
Of course if American Conservatives like Larison are going to embrace the UN as the final arbiter on such issues, then he should not be allowed to overlook the unanimous agreement of the 2005 UN World Summit that purports to impose a duty on member states to interve in a state’s internal affairs is permitted in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and other mass atrocities, if that state is unwilling or unable to protect its own people. Or to ignore that millions of Zimbabweans have been displaced to other countries in the region as a result of Mugabe’s policies — which makes it more than a purely internal matter in any event.
Depends on the meaning of the word, genocide.
More and more as time passes the far right and the far left resemble each other. Extremes meet. So now we have Buchanan attacking Churchill and Larison siding with the Chinese. Go figure.
Buchanan left the conservatives a long time ago.
Buchanan is a “conservative” in the most archaic way possible…..
The UN is functioning (or not) precisely as it was intended to. Admittedly it’s in a worst-case situation, but it’s a tribute to its designers.
At the time of the UN’s founding, there was a good deal of sentiment in favor of a world Government, a superstate intended to regulate the activities of its member states. The founders of the UN were representatives of States, and there is clearly no advantage to a State enjoying sovereignty to yield up that sovereignty to an even nominally superior structure. The UN is therefore designed to give the appearance of a superstate while being structured so as to totally prevent its acting as one. The Security Council veto and the UN’s total lack of taxing authority are major components of that structure.
Progressives, particularly leftist progressives, have spent the last sixty years trying to use the UN as if it were a World Government. Europeans, in particular, have tried hard to slough off the responsibilities of sovereignty on the UN while holding on tightly to the privileges. Note that the attempt, not long ago, to sneak in a taxing authority for the UN was fairly soundly defeated, not just by the nasty greedy Americans but by the EU and most member nations — taxing authority is one of the privileges of sovereignty any State is least likely to give up voluntarily.
It’s all really very clever, and yes, conservatives should support it, at least those conservatives who wish to preserve U.S. sovereignty, which is probably most of us. The UN’s inability to act against Mugabe is a feature, not a bug. Railing about it in terms of the-poor-Zims is a sacrifice of principle for expediency.
Regards,
Ric
Ric,
You have a point (as always). I’m just savoring the irony of paleocons embracing the UN’s vision of world government. Without the UN, the US would be better situated to protect its own sovereignty than most. Who the cahrter protects is the satellites and the small-time thugs like Mugabe — and Larison embraces it, despite the fact that the UN effectively undercut the Article 2 language he cites back in 2005. The 2005 agreement is notable because it is where the UN mask drops; the protection of sovereignty is greatly undercut — and inevitably so, given the overall transnational mission of the UN.
I mentioned Buchanan because I was talking about extremes. That is my point. When people go far enough right and far enough left they meet and it ain’t a pretty picture.
Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are creepy like Obamarama; Conservatives want nothing to do with them.
And to think, if not for massive Illegal Immigration then we would have to deal with those forces undermining American sovereignty or with those extremes who will take matters into their own hands. If US government(local, state and federal) had been following our nation’s laws then Americans would not be forced into preventing lawlessness and loss of sovereignty.
“purports to impose a duty on member states to interve in a state’s internal affairs is permitted in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and other mass atrocities, if that state is unwilling or unable to protect its own people.”
Yes when whenever the state is unwilling or unable to protect its own people (such as massive Illegal Immigration) then inevitably such lawlessness will force crimes against humanity to be committed. When The State is in perpetual lawlessness then government pretty much has complete power to take whatever necessary steps to maintain control.
Massive lawlessness of perpetual Illegal is about the worst thing that can be done to God’s children.
Heh. Karl, I don’t see any irony; cynicism, rather.
What’s going to eventually result in world government is the somebody-else’s-problem effect, and I think the founders of the UN not only knew that but expected it to happen faster — which would have resulted in the US being primus inter pares in the eventual result. That’s why the building is in New York, rather than (e.g.) Bern. (There is a lot of science fiction from the Fifties that saw that as both necessary and desirable; vide Heinlein’s The Star Beast and Have Spacesuit Will Travel.)
The transcendent irony is that it was the Socialists’ insistence that the World Government be a Socialist one led by the USSR that prevented that from happening. We, today, see the Korean intervention as being entirely the United States vs. the Chinese Communists; but that’s not how it was originally framed, and had that frame survived in the face of the Soviets’ insistence on preserving their sovereignty (and imperial ambitions), supported by American jingoists, both Viet Nam and Iraq (had they occurred at all) would have been done under blue flags. That didn’t happen, and the result is a corrupt version of the original intent: the United Nations has no power at all unless supported by American arms, but when that power is exerted the world Left immediately identifies it as American action, thus undercutting their own stated ambitions.
Paleocons are simply responding to that situation. They, too, see the power of the UN as being American power, and wish to use that figleaf to support ambitions that are, in fact, hegemonist if not imperialist (there are few if any true imperialists, but the tendency is there.) What they want is for the UN to endorse adventurism, and the very structure they wish to exploit is designed specifically to frustrate that. Of course, as usual, the situation falls under Ric’s First Rule — It ain’t that simple — but that’s the basis.
Regards,
Ric
I should add the United Nations is the perfect example of massive lawlessness of perpetual Illegal; which is why so many nations are in a state of continual genocide.
Buchanan left the conservatives a long time ago.
The majority of conservative radio and tv pundits sure don’t see it that way, sad to say. He’s the go-to guy for the “conservative viewpoint” in both conservative and liberal media outlets.
Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.
syn:
The strange thing is Pat Buchanan would agree with you on illegal immigration.
The only thing good about the UN: the US has a veto on the Security Council.
The Chinese are upholding their emerging image as an inspiration for mineral-wealthy dictatorships everywhere. You can hold on to power, keep your loot, and not face consequences if you side with us.
China and Russia are sort of evil though. I look down on them mostly. They a lot define humanity downwards is what I think.
It’s the reason that Hitler was vilified but not Stalin. Stalin only killed his own Jews. The paleo- wing of the conservatives are pretty much fine with tyrants so long as they don’t export any of their tyranny and make good trade with us.
Me, I’m sick and tired of the realpolitik these guys eat up like chocolate pudding.
Well said Jimmie.
That’s not pudding they’re snorfing up; they’ve just managed to convince themselves it is.
“Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled western liberal to point out that, after all, the face enjoys government healthcare and 100% literacy.” – John Derbyshire