From FOXNews:
Has North Korean leader Kim Jong Il subverted the United Nations Development Program, the $4 billion agency that is the U.N.’s main development arm, and possibly stolen tens of millions of dollars of hard currency in the process?
According to a top official of the U.S. State Department  using findings made by the U.N.’s own auditors  the answer appears to be a disturbing yes, so far as UNDP programs in North Korea itself are concerned.
And just as disturbingly, the U.N. aid agency bureaucracy has kept the scamming a secret since at least 1999  while the North Korean dictator and his regime were ramping up their illegal nuclear weapons program and making highly publicized tests of intermediate range ballistic missiles.
Nothing was disclosed even to the UNDP Executive Board, which oversees its operations and is composed of representatives of 36 nations  including the United States and, this year, North Korea itself.
That fact is sure to be a bombshell at the Executive Board’s regular annual meeting, which begins Friday and extends through Jan. 26. Among the main items to be discussed is the $18 million, two-year UNDP budget in North Korea.
And by “bombshell,” we’re talking some serious tut-tutting and finger wagging here, not just your general murmering and the occasional tsk out of some rogue cowboy diplomat who’s forgotten himself.
What I find most incredible about the transnationalist progressive worldview—and what I find so correspondingly infuriating—is that many of the same people who shriek, groan, and gnash their teeth over a program run by the NSA that is intended to help connect all those dots certain Democratic congress people loudly and frequently complain this Administration missed, are eerily silent on these not infrequent UN scandals, even as they continue to appeal to the collective dictates of a body of unelected bureaucrats, comically canonized as “international law” (often at odds with the mandates of our own Constitution and the very idea of sovereignty itself) as if it were chiseled into a pair of stone tablets by the fiery finger of Noam Chomsky himself.
That the UN is aware of the scandals and covers them up—presumably because they don’t want the world’s riff raff bothering them with a lot of noisy outrage—just speaks to the depth of their corruption and the enormity of their arrogance.
As for Kim Jong Il, well, who can blame the sawed-off little tyrant for sticking his finger into the soft, doughy underbelly of this bureaucratic pie and trying to pull out a couple dozen plums? After all, he must have figured that if he could get Jimmy Carter to take him nuclear and Madeleine Albright to dance a jig, liberating a little scratch from the cynical greedy suits at the UN would be a cinch.
But I digress. Here’s the bit of the story that really pinned my irony meter to eleven:
Moreover, the period of scandal and secrecy in the UNDP’s North Korean operations coincided in large measure with the tenure of Mark Malloch Brown, most recently Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations itself, as administrator of the UNDP.
Malloch Brown took over the UNDP in July 1999, and stayed in his post even after August 2005, when he also became chief of staff for then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who at the time was reeling under the effects of the Oil for Food scandal.
In March 2006, Malloch Brown took over as Deputy Secretary General from Louise Frechette, who suddenly left the U.N. ahead of schedule, after her own role in Oil for Food became widely known and criticized. Only then did Malloch Brown give up his UNDP fiefdom.
Malloch Brown left the U.N. along with Annan at the end of last year and has since been harshly critical of the Bush Administration and its former ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, for their demands for greater U.N. transparency and reform.
Gee, I wonder why that might be?
Reached for comment, John Bolton’s straightalking mustache, “Regis,” noted with a snort that Brown “is the kind of cat who couldn’t find integrity if it was wearing a cone bra and slapping him in the ass with a bull whip.”
(h/t Chris Hanson)
Those tablets being held steady by Potato Head Chavez as he sniffs the air for Bushelzebub…
Damn, I miss Regis.
Yeah, I read “eggshell” for “bombshell,” for some reason.
But then I read “bombshell.”
I am shocked, shocked that the NoKo’s would misuse UN money and assets.
About as shocked as seeing half starved dogs devour a pile of steaks dumped in front of them.
Meanwhile, this massive black-hole of bad karma is slowly assembling less than two miles from my home.
Pray for me.
Thanks Jeff you just blew my cover–I have dyed myself, gotten a trim and replaced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mustache. Bolton was not confirmed UN Ambassador to give me cover. I was just about to blow open the entire Iranian nuclear program. Now I am fucked–I have to get out of here before he goes for his razor.
Fitzgerald will be calling you on Monday.
Bmoe:
RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY FASTER!!
But …. but Kyoto is a UN “ scheme “ . Are you implying there might be cause to look closer at the players behind the economics of Kyoto ???
I mean with trillions changing hands , surely we can trust the good men and women of the UN to act accordingly .
Um … Bill D Cat:
Define accordingly…
First of all, I will be amazed if this gets posted.
Second:
I am praying for you, even beyond my own impossible situation.
Here is a question from an old fart who graduated high school well before the Goonies took over.
Who in their right mind could think that Carter is anything but Kim Il Mentally Ill’s brother? He is whacked, in case anybody hasn’t noticed..
You hate the UN, right? I mean, not just in practice because of corruption, ineptitude, etc. You hate the concept of the United Nations and internationalism, correct? Would you even want a smooth-running, uncorrupt, UN that the U.S. cedes some significant power or authority to?
It would be a waste of time to discuss what improvements would help the UN if you are really just criticizing it to bring it down.
If he is, all I got to say is, I didn’t do it.
pay any attention to you.
Also worth a read …
I think the real news here is not that a tyrant abused UN funds, or that the UN is covering it up.
The real news is that someone at State revealed it!
This is clearly the act of a rogue agent at Foggy Bottom, drunk on the heresy that people working for the executive branch of government are actually supposed to help effectuate the policy of the executive.
BJTexas ,
If you look at “ Oil For Food “ and “ Kyoto “ many of the same names keep popping up ……
but hey , it’s probably just a coincidence . I’m told they mean well tho .
Almost as much as I want a Unicorn.
I suspect Regis.
Yeah, but not even Regis can get me a Unicorn.
Steve XX:
The last time I checked a degree in Psychiatry does not automatically imbue one with ESP. Perhaps you would be better off asking the direct question rather than hewing through Answers-as-Questions in an attempt to devalue the responder before he/she … er … responds.
For me I’ve always loved the idea of the UN but after over 60 years of corruption, America bashing and ineffectiveness I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s broke beyond repair and not worth the trouble or the money.
If you have a fix for the UN rather than Answers-as-Questions then, by all means, build us the better Unicorn!
Bill D Cat.
You are so right! It’s truly a miracle how the corrupt chaff befoul the same programs time and again.
That question has two arguments:
1) “… a smooth-running, uncorrupt, UN…” Answer: Yes;
2)”…that the U.S. cedes some significant power or authority to…” Answer: Not on your life, buster.
Absolutely no ceding of the sovreignity of any country–any country at all–to it. No One World Order, no Multiculturalism, no Marxist utopia, no Kumbaya. As Americans, we enjoy the best government the world has ever known. Why would we want to throw it away to a pack of discredited socialists and crytpto-totalitarians? THe EU is no one’s wet dream. Better we should preserve our present form to help other nations out of the mire.
No. Why would you want to? Give us specific reasons so we can mock them mercilously. Please? Couldn’t be any funnier than writing “uncorrupt” and “UN” in the same sentence even if posed as an interogatory.
Honestly, steve? I don’t know. If you could find out a few things for me, I might could answer that. For instance, how many member nations of the UN:
Have a Constitution?
Respect the right of private property?
Freedom of the press?
Freedom of speech?
Freedom of religion?
Freedom to peaceably assembly?
Habeas Corpus?
Presumption of innocence?
How much individual power and authority are you willing to cede to these people, steve?
Accordingly , as defined by the UN
1. BADA BING !!!
Steve’s reply: We dont have them either in Chimptler’s America!
And then I go over to another thread…
I don’t know. How many unconstitutional things will they try to do?
Anyway, the point is moot. The UN is an inherently corrupt organization which gives representatives of nasty little nations a place to scream about U.S. hegemony while privately thanking their lucky stars they get to live in the U.S. It serves no useful purpose to any U.S. interests, or at least none that I can see.
If we ceded power to them, they’d rob us blind.
B Moe,
We used to have Habeus Corpus and the presumption of innoncence in the U.S., but if Gonzalez is to be beleived, that is no longer the case. Some other countries have all of the criteria you mention, I believe. Would you favor a UN if they all met at least the ones the U.S. currently meets?
1. <strike>BADA BING<strike\> CHA CHING!!!
There, fixed that for you.
Would you even want a smooth-running, uncorrupt, UN
No, full stop.
But then again, on principle, I’m pretty much against anything Franklin Roosevelt got going (with the possible exception of our involvement in WWII). So, it’s simple, but it’s complicated.
They don’t need power ceded to them to rob us blind . They seem fully capable without any further powers .
Are you for real? If the UN did what you suggest, nobody could complain. But they don’t! The UN is probably the most corrupt institution in recorded history.
As it stands, the UN is a giant bag of shit, looking for more feces to stretch it’s parameters.
Kofi Annan? C’mon, you idiot. What a man Annan is! Who better to emulate? Jimmy Carter? Go, moron.
If you are unaware of this, you are too stupid to live, and I hereby nominate you for a Darwin Award. You definitely deserve it…
Techie: Right on the nose! Except for the Gonzalez part…
Nifong, anyone?
Nifong, Annan, iceberg – it’s all thr same to me…
Ahem,
What would be the point of the UN if no real power is ceded to it? I agree that the risk of totalitarianism is not something to be ignored, but I don’t see much hope for the future of the world without some sort of international organization designed to prevent wars. Might makes right can’t realistically continue with the current level of weaponry, population, limited resources and cultural divisiveness on the planet.
The problem Steve is that there are more authoritarian and corrupt regimes in the world than there are democratic and/or relatively honest regimes. Therefore any body such as the UN will necessarily become corrupted over time as the corrupt regimes use their numbers to appoint corrupt people to run the UN and then use their influence to ensure that there is no accountability. As a result you end up with a well funded Bureaucracy that is unaccountable and wide open for corruption.
Beyond that your argument is retarded: It’s pointless to try to reform or improve the UN because some of it’s critics don’t like it. Well Steve by your impeccable logic there is no point in trying to improve or reform the United States since some of our critics don’t like us. Ditto basically any other country in the world. I guess on the good side this means we won’t have to be hearing anymore wailing, screaming or crying from liberals about how the rest of the world hates us.
And as long as you believe, nothing else matters.
I’m not sure my fragile worldview can handle this sort of news. The Norks act in a dishonest way you say? Pshaw. We probably drove them to it.
A quick overview of the UN for the corruption impaired .
1. Things they’ve done ; Oil For Food
2. Things they’re working on ; Kyoto
3. Things on their wishlist ; Internet Tax
Anyone notice the incremental progression ?
A trillion here , a trillion there , pretty soon you’re talking about serious money .
For the record – From just this week:
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?
Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
Gimme a fucking break. We’ve had this “international organization” around for over a half a century and how many wars has it prevented? Why would it prevent any in the future? But I agree with you on one thing: I, too, don’t see much hope for the world either but it isn’t because of want for some supranational world body adjudicating international strife.
Name one war prevented by the UN. Just one.
Ah yes, I’m having a vision.
Steve XX is channeling the Left (way) ward closely held belief that while the UN has crackly corruptness the idea is sound and must be cherished and protected and honored!
His ilk are like the guy who marries a beautiful woman. She embodies all of his hopes and dreams, supportive and affectionate. The sky is the limit!
Many years later she is a cackling hag, running around with thugs and drug pushers, turning tricks, stealing his credit cards and calling him a loser at every opportunity while she screeches for more and more cash. However Steve XX, in his ever twinkling universe, can only see the lovely vision that he married, convinced that if he were just a bit more accomodating or maybe did the dishes more often, that she will come back to him and empower him as she once did.
Yup, I’m saying that he’s UN whipped…..
Got a link for the entire thing, Steve? For the sake of context?
I post links for you, don’t I? It’s only fair you respond in kind.
Not that we don’t trust you. Just that, well, progressives have a tendency to “finesse” the narrative from time to time.
For our own good, sure. But still.
Defense Guy,
I can name one war the UN tried to prevent… it’s the same one I tried to prevent. Me and the UN had about as much power to stop it. That’s kind of my point.
… crackly corruptness … sniff , sniff , that was beautiful man .
Defense Guy: Short answer; No!
Come on guys, lets be fair. After all I used the money I stole to finance a 50ft tall gold and diamond studded sculpture of my penis. You wouldn’t want me to be unable to finish turning it into a fountain would you? It will be the most magnficent mayonaise penis fountain in the entire world. It’s exactly what my people need to take their minds off the fact that they are starving to death. Did I mention it’s life size?
Also, could someone have Madeleine Albright call me? I’m ronery.
If you think it’s pointless to try and reform the UN, then why would you support Bolton’s call to do so unless you think reform is synonymous with destruction or elimination?
Steve XX,
All time low here, defending the UN. I think we all agree that it is time for you to change to a stronger tin-foil hat……
Jeff,
I’m quite certain that just about any person here could find 3 or 4 links to that testimony faster than I could find one.
If the UN is going to exist and the U.S is going to remain a member (which of course it as and we are) then we might as well try to make it as functional as possible. It’s a matter of not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Steve,
You can stop wasting everyone’s time, now that you’ve checkmated yourself. Coming out foursquare for an organization that tried to prevent the removal of a tyrant who murdered his own people by the truckload kind of does that.
Thanks for playing the home game…
Because very few of us had any confidence that he would be given the time or the support to accomplish anything. Seems as though we were right. That might constitute the last nail in the coffin of reform.
Thank you Democrats and Rinos.
FTR, stevexx, try boning up on the subjective and objective use of pronouns. Might–might–bolster your otherwise limp arguments.
But you’ve nonetheless mad a point: you’re just fine and dandy with the unelected solons of the UN preventing the invasion of Iraq so they can continue lining their pockets deep with $20B from the oil-for-food scam. How noble of them.
How to fix the U.N.:
1) Turn Turtle Bay into a parking deck which would be the envy of the world. Call it the Freedom To Park Tower. Or turn it into a Dave & Buster’s. These corrupt fat cat diplomats will no longer bask in luxury in Manhattan while getting little to nothing done.
2) Convert a 1960’s constructed middle school in some farm town in the middle of a corn field somewhere either in Ohio or Nebraska (sorry, Ohioans or Nebraskans) into the new “U.N. Building”. They could use those old filmstrip machines to do presentations and make carbon dittos for the day’s activities. Maybe install a Coke machine in the old teacher’s lounge.
3) Liberal (in a classic sense) democracies only for membership. Cuba…out. China…out. Iran…out. You get the drift.
4) Budget: whatever they make during their annual door-to-door M&M’s/Kit Kat sale. Expand sales to tables at Safeway.
Steve is presumably referring to this bit of lefty nonsense. Gonzales was correct that (a) art. I, sec. 9 recognizes the privilege of the writ, which has its roots in the common law; and (b) while the Supreme Court mentioned art. i, sec. 9 in the Rasul case, it is in fact a case about habeas statutes that go far beyond the writ as mentioned in the constitution.
The reality here is that if one looks at measures of political and economic freedom, or respect for human rights, etc., the vast majority of nations lag the US.
It apparently has not occurred to Steve that if the vast majority of nations ranked as high as the US does by these measures, there would be little or no need for a UN.
Which is what I meant with my Unicorn remarks, but I forgot that Steve didn’t get the “nuts” joke… or even the title of this blog. So I should have been more deathly pedantic about it.
How about
Mark Steyn .
Hell, I’d be in favor of not letting the bad be the enemy of the horrendeously bad, but that’s just me.
I feel the same way discussing the Iraq War with you Steve XX
I don’t see why not. We have more weapons, more people, more limited resources and more cultural divisiveness.
All the proper ingredients to realistically continue ‘might makes right’….
I confess, I never understood why people use that phrase as though it were a bad thing.
I notice that Might Makes Right everytime I see the armed security guard inside the Whole Foods Market.
He always stands there looking kinda put-upon while the Food Hole proggs shoot dirty looks at him and his gun, but without him, that safe haven of expensive peasant food wouldn’t be possible.
Might in fact does Make Right in that mercy and kindness can only be expected from the strong and cruelty from the weak.
Goddamnit that salmon spread and brie are almost as delicious as the looks I get from the simpering proggs when I go in there brazenly in my Army BDU’s….
Steve,
I respect you sticking around and maintaining a civil tone despite all the ridicule thrown at you. Seriously, that’s rare.
But the thing is, transnational quasi-governmental organizations like the UN (or the EU, for that matter) are inherently, unavoidably prone to corruption. It’s not just the fact that many member states are loathesomely despotic; the UN would be hopelessly corrupt and useless even if every government was a liberal democracy. It’s a giant bureaucracy prone to all the ills bureaucracies are heir to–empire-building, sclerosis by paperwork, job security, limitless ambition to expand–but without any of the oversight and accountability requirements that local bureaucracies have to deal with.
It’s a bit like leftists who claim that Marxism is a wonderful system in principle, but unworkable in practice. My answer: if it’s unworkable in practice, it cannot be a wonderful system, quite the opposite.
Oh, and as for this:
Look. Either Jeff’s criticism is warranted on the facts, or it isn’t. His motivations are entirely irrelevant.
If the story is true, Steve, do you agree that Jeff’s criticism is justified?
Gray,
I understand that “might makes right” has been the way of the world for some time. There is an obvious difference, though, in our current era due to the level of destructive weapons and an ever increasing population fighting for fewer resources. There is really only one direction that a continuation of “might makes right” can go, and it ain’t going to be pretty (or reversible). I could see making the argument that the situation is hopeless so we might as well keep things going until the inevitable end. This seems to be the way things are going. I don’t agree with it, but it is the only alternative to trying to end the “might makes right” approach to the world and try to live in peace. I mean, if you don’t even think that there should be an attempt to live in peace, then there isn’t much point in having any international organization allegedly devoted to it. I don’t really think that Bolton had any interest in “reforming” the UN. The guy loathes the UN. He is of the same ilk as the John Birchers with “US out of UN” billboards strewn across Midwest highways when I was growing up.
I notice that Might Makes Right everytime I see the armed security guard inside the Whole Foods Market.
I know. They never liked it when I tried to just take some food, you know, maybe some bulk pistachios or some date bars, out the door “‘cause I’m a little light in the pocket, man – spread the love”. No, they always wanted payment, as if they believed in the whole capitalist rip-off thing.
Or when I tried to take Abbie Hoffman’s book out of the bookstore without paying. But it said right on the cover “Steal this Book”! What was their problem?
mgl,
That isn’t the way that debate generally works. I am fully aware of the corruptness of the UN as well as the corruptness of Enron and the corruption of the Soviet Union and the corruption of the US and every other large nation, organization, corporation, etc. I am inherently distrustful of all of them. But I saw a lot of what I really felt was exaggerated outrage over the UN when the UN was not buckling to the U.S. calls for an invasion in Iraq. To me, these are front arguments to the core argument that the U.S. should be able to do whatever it wants. This kind of debate was used a lot in the run-up to the Iraq.
For example, we could argue over whether Scott Ritter tried to pick up a 17 year old on the internet and examine all the facts, but what does that have to do with whether Iraq had WMD’s?
Yes, the UN, like any organization, is mired in a lot of corruption. But what does that have to do with the arguments made against the Iraq War?
I retire from this thread. I feel it is about 40% of the way towards Godwin’s Law, so I’ll preemptively stop it.
Nope. Population will stabilize around 9-11 billion sometime in the middle of this century.
Nope.
OK, I’ll bite: what’s the obvious difference now? It’s really no different than it ever was. Rome wiped out entire cities, it just took longer. Resources have always been scarce and we have always fought over them.
What is this ‘obvious difference’?
Are you saying that the guy with the Glock in Whole Foods actually creates more strife and crime and chaos?
Can’t you see that it is the possession of force and the willingness to use it that guarantees peace? It is unfortunate, but it is and will always be the way of the world. Weakness is always hounded to death and destroyed in nature as it is in national affairs.
I don’t think there should be ‘an attempt to live in peace’.
(”…an attempt to live in peace.” Ye Gods, how whiney and wishy-washy is that!?).
I think there should be a peace guaranteed by force of arms and the will to use them. It is the only ‘peace’ in this fallen world.
I want to live in a world where no thug would try to rip off the wimpy, defenseless proggs in Whole Foods. That’s what I want for them. But until then, I want them protected by a surly guard with a gun and plenty of ammo.
–while they shoot him dirty looks because his very existence put the lie to their unrealistic world of ‘attempting to live in peace’. Just like they hate G. Bush.
It’s not the world you wish it was and ‘attempting to live in peace’ with wishes and good feelings always, always gets the weak and innocent killed first.
I don’t know – what do they have to do with each other? You’re the one who brought it up in this thread.
You don’t see what the link is between opposing the war in Iraq, and siphoning off billions of dollars from the oil-for-food program?
Get outta town, you can’t be that dense!
steve
Let’s start by making the UN accountable. If it handles that, then we could discuss what you are suggesting. Although I can tell you if by power you mean granting the UN power over our government or even control of any of our troops, then I can assure you that will never happen. Ever.
Finish painting that corner before you leave—we’ll paint over your footprints, no big deal.
Continue Oil For Food scam worth 100 billion in graft or vote to invade Iraq ? It never ceases to amaze me that these so called socialists always , and I mean always go for the huge pile of illicit cash to enrich themselves , friends and families to the exclusion of their so called global vision .
Or maybe it was that some people understood that the nations blocking action against Saddam were the same countries that armed him, stood to benefit from keeping the tyrant in power, and were bribed by Saddam. That had a lot to do with the arguments against the invasion of Iraq.
…and then there is his record at the UN.
But when forced to have to address facts, rather than what he feels, Steve “retires” from the thread. Because he really doesn’t want to be stuck making the argument that Saddam should have been left in power, under a crumbling sanctions regime that the usual suspects were trying to end for their own economic benefit.
So you’re not a person? Or you’re just too lazy to bother? Or you hold us in such contempt that you don’t think it’s necessary to treat us as equals?
I love how you can read people’s minds. It’s so amazing. When did you develop this power, and what, if any, are its limits?
what is it with the trolls giving up today? BECAUSE OF THE NAMECALLING! you big meanies!
but yeah, the link thing is about courtesy. I nag RTO about it all the time. “that’s great honey, but how bout showing us where all this came from?”
I think mgl hit the nail on the head—the UN would degenerate into corruption even if every participant were a modern liberal democracy. Corruption is the only conceivable outcome of bureaucracy without accountability.
“I am fully aware of the corruptness of the UN as well as the corruptness of Enron…”
Enron, of course, was ultimately accountable to its creditors and its shareholders, and it disintegrated when its corruption was exposed. To touch on Steve’s other examples, the US government has corrupt elements within it, mainly in the unelected career bureaucracy, but even these occasionally get cleaned out through public outrage and the democratic process. The Soviet Union of course was not accountable in any democratic sense, but it too imploded under the weight of its own corruption and the rebellious dissatisfaction of its subject population.
What’s so scary about the UN is that it has no accountability whatsoever. The only people who can cleanse it of its corruption are its member states, most of whom quite enjoy the perks the corruption provides. Except of course the US, which gets endless grief from the likes of Steve for wanting to institute some accountability and clean a little house. Instead, Steve would prefer that the US pony up some power to cede to the UN. Just brilliant.
Where have I heard that before?
LionDude,
Once upon a time, there was a plan to put the UN in rural Rhode Island. On the one hand, I’d hate to have that den of thieves in my approximate neighborhood. On the other, it would be a whole lot easier to burn it to the ground.
Speaking of which, I wonder how it is that the proggs can look at American intervention in Iraq as a failure and also look at the UN as a worthwhile effort.
“Burn it to the ground”?? “Might makes right”?? How is it that those who even dare to suggest that the U.S. military has fulfilled its primary mission in Iraq, and just maybe, shouldn’t be acting as nose-wiping nannies any longer, are branded as sniveling isolationists? Meanwhile, you call for the outright withdrawal of the U.S. from the U.N. Or even its obliteration. We stand alone, dammit!
I agree, the U.N. needs a thorough housecleaning (I like John Bolton; he rattled some rickety cages), but how can you reconcile the notion that liberals are evil isolationists with your prevailing resistance to participation in a transnational organization like the U.N.? One which might call into question the motives and intentions of the U.S. on occasion? Accountability runs both ways, and I think it must be applied with rigor.
Well, I wouldn’t because I don’t consider liberals to be evil isolationists. But the UN is an abject failure. Results matter. What looked good on paper is a disaster in reality. That’s what happens when you put tyrannical tin pot tyrants on par with free democratic nations.
Are you suggesting that an organization which puts the likes of Syria and Libya on its human rights commission is effective? Do you think it’s capable of dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Do you think it ouught to be? How about Oil for Food?
BTW, the primary mission in Iraq was regime change. Mission accomplished.
Cynn —
If you’re so big on accountability, you’d be a bit more down on the UN, I think.
As for isolationism, not all Dems are taking that tack. But if you listen to them drone on about “outsourcing” and the evils of “globalization” and “multinational corporations”—then couple that with their newfound love of realpolitik in matters of foreign policy—you’d see how people might begin calling a spade a spade.
The only difference between these type of Dems and the Buchananites is that the Buchananites actually believe in this bullshit. Whereas these type Dems just think it’ll buy them some votes.
No, it doesn’t. That’s the point, the UN is accountable to no one, they aren’t elected and there is no independant oversight.
Then there must be a reconstruction that builds mutual accountability into the dynamic. But I won’t hold my breath that the U.S. would ever buy into any body that could hold it “accountable.” So what’s the option? Just about anything I can think of seems unwieldly.
I was just pointing out what I felt was an internal inconsistency of the right, not meaning to paint any sentiment with a broad brush.
Certain views are “isolationist”, because they question our involvement in Iraq; other views are “masochistic” because they defend our involvement in the U.N., even a new and improved version.
I recommend this short movie mocking Kim Jong Il and his secret agent buying Hennessy XO wine from Chinese black market :=
See NATO, which is currently engaged in securing and reconstructing Afghanistan.
Well, I have to agree that the U.N. as it presently exists is a joke, full of puffed-up political exiles who abuse their immunity and authority. Definitely needs exfoliating.
I guess the basic question I have is: Do you want to be part of the world or not? You’re sending mixed messages.
TW: being51—the hell I am
I want to be part of the free world. The rest needs to catch up with me, not the other way ‘round.
But then, I’m an arrogant jingoist who eats paste and is stupid stupid stupid!
OK, then. Looks like I stood in line for one ride and got on another. Either way, I’m out of tickets. And quit ragging on yourself, Mr. Goldstein. Paste is protein. That’s the whole point of this site, right??? See, I get the joke.
TW: growing36. Now you’re just being mean.
One which might call into question the motives and intentions of the U.S. on occasion? Accountability runs both ways, and I think it must be applied with rigor.
There’s already a process in place to hold the US accountable. It’s called “democratic elections”. Happens all the time.
Please do enlighten us what process holds the UN accountable, and please do describe the “rigor” with which that process is applied. Thanks.
Again I have to say that those above arguing in favor of the UN are clinging to an ideal that simply doesn’t exist any more or, at best, is so corrupted that it’s present form is untenable.
Truth be told the UN imperative to get anything done has rested with no more than a dozen countries. The rest have the illusion of influence due to the syncophantic nature of the organization. In point of fact, they’re influence is more public relations face time than real impact in international politics.
This particular scenario is an anathema to the left as it knocks heads with the holy pyre of multiculturalism and anti imperialism that they hold so dear. Their vision of what the UN should represent is so far from the reality as to be intergalactic but they cannot give up the utopian dream as it would force them to acknowledge the hegemony of the nations that really have and will continue to shape world events. The brutaL fact that the US is at the top of that heap makes them anxious and defensive.
Since the left is so fixated on polls (and uses the Iraq ones to bludgeon us on a regular basis) I would challenge them to find a wideranging national poll that suggests the American people are in majority agreement with ceding some sovreign power to the UN at this time.
Good luck with that.
So why doesn’t that position make you an isolationist? Define it however you like.
Come to think of it, I urge any of the loyal opposition to respond.
*sigh* because as someone pointed out already, there’s still NATO. AND most of us aren’t carping about “sending jobs overseas”
cynn, recognizing that the UN is an unmitigated disaster doesn’t make you an isolationist. It only means that you’re cognizant.
I like the idea of a United Democratic Nations whose membership would only be open to free nations, and which would solve the primary problem with the UN which is that it puts tyrannies on an even par with free states. That and it has a demonstrated inability to enforce its resolutions.
It’s hopelessly corrupt and broken beyond repair. You don’t have to be Pat Buchanan to figure that out.
“So why doesn’t that position make you an isolationist?”
Because being opposed to corrupt unaccountable bureaucracies in no way makes someone isolationist. Your question is a non sequitur.
I’ve lurked here for a while and I get the sense that many of the posters are entirely in favor of American and Anglosphere intervention in world affairs, especially through bilateral and multilateral alliances. It’s the part where the Anglosphere has to secure the approval of a corrupt bureaucrat from Bongobongoland that causes folks some trouble.
Now, since you seem to have missed my original request, I’ll repeat it: please describe what process exists to hold the UN accountable, and please describe the “rigor†with which that process is applied.
Or do you just ask questions around here and not provide any answers?
DRB–
If they get too out of hand, Claudia Rosett does some investigation and publishes their misdeeds in the WSJ. That’s pretty much the control we exercise over them.
Then by all means, disband the U.N. and expand NATO peacekeeping resources. This time, we might consider paying our way.