UN best intentions at crossroads
This week outgoing United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, gave his last address to an American audience. It was purposeful and is significant to those who understand the leadership of the United States and President Harry Truman’s pivotal role in the UN’s creation in 1945 that the location was the Truman Library in Independence, Mo. Though a friend and supporter of the US, Annan has not been shy to criticize the US or the administration when he felt we had strayed from the ideals of equity, honor and advancing human rights committed to in the establishment of the United Nations. The most vivid of these criticisms being two years ago when he labeled the Iraq war “illegal”.
In his address, Annan summarized five lessons that remind us about the need for leadership, as much today as it was six decades ago, to uphold those principles of equity, honor and advancing human rights. These lessons are; responsibility for each other's security, giving everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity, both security and prosperity depending on human rights and the rule of law, states being accountable to each other in their international conduct, and finally that these things can only be done by working together through a multilateral system and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.
So as controversial US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, resigns avoiding a tough and likely impossible Senate confirmation and Ban Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea is sworn in as UN Secretary General, making restoring trust in the world body as his first goal, the UN faces many issues. Just a few of the top ones that are or should be of interest to Americans include the crisis in Darfur, urgent need for renewed focus for peace in the Middle East, and the six party talks on N. Korean nuclear issue. Who takes the lead role at the UN from the United States and how our administration and government takes seriously these and other common concerns of the world we share will determine to a great degree the success or failure at the United Nations and everyone’s ability to address these issues.
As far as Annan’s message in Independence, a meaningful farewell is what others say segment of the editorial section summarized and one to which our current administration as well as the American citizens should pay attention. What do you say?
22 Comments:
Your comments indicate you are a supporter of the UN and share an opinion that it is an effective international organization.
Please state your evidence of the UN's effectiveness in the past 40 years. For your five or fewer possible examples of success, I will reply with a short list of major failures among hundreds of failures.
Hmmm... the comment of a go it alone, we know better than the rest of the world, we are better than everyone else... attitude that has turned America into an international laughing stock, destroyed our repurtation and integrity.
Anon 5:50pm indicates that the international community's disdain for America is a new phenomenon and attitude since the start of the Iraq War.
What nonsense! Don't play so stupid.
Except for Britain, Israel, Australia and a few others, the international community has welcomed USA support and influence only when it’s to their immediate personal benefit and otherwise has hated the USA.
As soon as the end of WWII, deGaulle showed the general dislike of American by the French.
East European nations hated us during the Cold war and most of this hatred continues. Probably a lot of jealousy but many other factors too.
Western European and Asian countries dislike us because of our power and influence as a World Power, as do others.
Go ahead and hate Bush and the Iraq War, but don't let the international community off the hook by suggesting they historically are a big supporter of the USA over the last 50+ years.
Our historical problems with the UN’s lack of support for USA initiatives are well documented. But you may choose to continue to let your hatred blind your judgment.
I fully agree with the annonymous writer that states we should not "go it alone" - the US must learn that we are a part of an international community and not try to be the ruler of this community with our own views and our own purposes!
I am very concerned about the annonymous "naysayer" about the UN. The number of negatively oriented carpers in our country is far beyond their usefulness. While I agree that the UN has far too many failures, it is weak because most of the stronger countries (US included) want it to be that way! We simply MUST learn to cooperate better if the world will ever move ahead. We need support, not sideline naysayers with no good ideas.
the United Nations is a flawed institution because it was designed to be a flawed institution. The Security Council is the biggest joke I have ever seen! Can you imagine if we ran our political system in this manner?
Florida, Texas, California, and New York would have veto power over the wills and desires of teh rest of us in both the Senate on the House and could veto any measure they deemed threatening to their interests.
The U.N. can't interced in the Darfur because of China vetoes. It can't bring humanitarian aid to Palestine territories because the U.S. vetoes. And ever permanent member seems to veto any resolution that will restrict their lucrative arms trade in anyway.
It is no secret that the top arms dealers in the world are the security council permanent members, and the United Nations will not bring piece to anyone until the institution is either scrapped or made truly democratic, with a stronger voice and will given to smaller countries . . .
Typical Liberal viewpoint. We acknowledge that the UN is terribly flawed, so let’s expand their control and influence.
Can we ever look at humanitarian needs and efforts, such as the ones focused on (or atleast attempted) by the UN without looking at what are my political advantages or disadvantages of helping another people in need?
Let's try getting over the "I" mentality and thinking with a "WE" mentality.
The UN is an effective forum for a country to communicate their grievances to the world.
However, the UN is a proven failure to implement effective plans to solve the world's problems.
Talking does not hurt as long as you are not dilusional in your thinking that talk alone will solve problems.
Kofi Annan is corrupt beyond all reason. Let's celebrate his retirement, let's pull our $5B annually out of the UN bottomless hole, and, let's send the mission out of NY.
What are the accomplishments of the UN?
-Third world dictators and many industrialized nation’s rulers have enriched themselves with UN aid programs which have little funds accountability safeguards.
-The UN has no plans to address the most pressing and rising problem of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism. The UN is even afraid to discuss this taboo subject. However, they do vaguely talk about opposing terrorism with their “lip service”.
-The UN is the most effective internationally-recognized opponent to Israel sovereignty.
-UN leaders have legitimized their personal wealth enrichment from UN funding and contract kickback awards, as evidenced by the growth of wealth by the United Nations Secretary-general Kofi Annan and his family members.
-The UN is notorious for its false promises to the victims of genocide and innocent civilians caught in war torn areas, where UN troops stand by and do nothing or even participate in the raping and pillaging as evidence by Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, and the other 10+ locations where UN “Peace Keeping” forces are in occupation.
-The UN is politics on a world stage. So as expected you have hypocrisy and “cover your ass” speeches such as Kofi Annan’s retirement world tour, down playing and even denying his role during the many UN failures under his leadership. This is revisionism on a world scope.
The only times the UN delivered marginally acceptable results are when the USA, Britain, and their allies delivered these results, under the label of a UN mandate. These FACTS are not in dispute.
In principle the concept of the UN is an excellent idea. In practice, the UN is an example of bureaucratic ineffectiveness, corruption, hypocrisy, false hope, and ultimately…..FAILURE.
How about this yahoo's LTTE in today's Enquirer...
In an effort to join the amen chorus, the Rev. Joseph C. Brink ("Christians must have courage to oppose war in Iraq," Your Voice, Dec. 14), chooses to advocate that Christians oppose the war.
In citing the number of people killed, he chooses to ignore the absence of war on American soil and the number of American and Iraqi potential dead if this action had not been taken. The equating of courage to a retreat and surrender mentality is an insult to the volunteer Christians who are at this time fighting (like it or not) for us.
We are all for peace.
We are not all for peace at all costs.
According to this writer, had we not attacked a sovereign nation without provocation we are to believe that Iraq was going to attack the US, and in so doing there would have been many more casualties than the current Iraq debacle has caused. Right. And I think I will attempt to sell you an imaginary Iraqi Navy, Air Force and Marines to deliver said Iraqi invaders to our shores.
Is this the kind of critical thinking that results from listening to Rush, Hannity, & O'Reilly, Malkin & Coulter ad nauseum.
The UN is a thoroughly corrupt organization and has been run by a group of high class although not necessarily highly intelligent criminals for at least the past 30 years, and more likely 40 or more in point of fact.
America can and should "go it alone" whenever the choice becomes a matter of following the holy cow of international cooperation and losing our sovereignty and indiviudal freedom.
Times do change and our understanding of science and nature increase. This increase of knowledge translates out into new and more powerful technology at the disposal of both countries and individuals alike, but the one thing that will not change is human nature itself. There will always be a criminal element plotting against us for their own benefit and as such the best defense against that is the nation state. It is America that has stood in the way of the people that want to have total control over the world, and we should not stand down now or ever. God Bless America and every patriot that supports her.
Anonymous at 5:26 PM, December 17, 2006 made some excellent points. I believe that Bill Clinton has deomonstrated that he would be an excellent United Nations Secretary-General.
You think UN is corrupt? Go dig into FEMA's records and where the tons of aid money we gave for Katrina went.
I've read through this UN blog. Mostly UN failures are cited with some specifics.
The Proponents of the UN say the UN is great and that the USA should never be so arrogant to go it alone.
I have not read any specific references to the success of the UN or evidence of why we should continue to support the UN.
Are you UN supporters just self Loathing disgruntled USA haters? Please share some specifics and not rhetoric.
It will be a fine day when the denizens of Cincinnati crack open a few books on the United Nations and its history rather than regurgitate talking points they have heard from Bill Cunningham and Rush Limbaugh radio programs.
There is corruption in the United Nations just as there is corruption in the United States. You say oil-for-food program, and I point you to the K-Street project. You point to the UN Security Council rotating membership being bribed repeatedly, and I'll point you to the United States' agents who are the ones pumping out the cash. (Hint: they do it mostly through UNICEF.)
Does anyone see a pattern here? The United Nations government and the United States government are two entities with a very similar genetic makeup. They are both corrupt, they both have policies that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and both operate on very mafia-esque principles, behind closed doors with their masters, the captains of industry, who will pat them on the back at the end of a long day for a job (from their perspective, of course) well done.
The United Nations will fail because the United States and the other four permanent members of the Security Council have purposely flawed the organization so that it will continually fail. What we have in the United Nations is not a true democracy but in reality, something more akin to a triumvirate.
Anon 3:12 PM, December 19, 2006 starts out making a good point that both the UN and USA are corrupt in their implementation of policies.
From there the author bungles into the sinister industrial complex running the world.
But anon’s first point is valid. The UN is corrupt and can’t deliver. However, the USA has mass corruption yet is still capable of delivering results.
Who do you want directing USA resources of wealth and military power, the feckless UN or the USA (with American interests)?
Commenters’ 3:12 PM, December 19, 2006 arguments wilt as they focus on demonizing individuals that share an opposing view, rather than debating the substance of the discussion.
If you can't win an argument with the validity of your reasoning....smear the mud broadly.
I am anon 3:12, and all I was pointing out is how all similar you guys sound because you're all relaying the same GOP-approved talking points, trying to pass them off as your own ideas. I just think, you know, its kind of sad. Look up the information yourselves instead of being spoonfed it by Sean Hannity knock-offs! Before you tout the UN oil-for-food scandal and Annan's hands in it, look into whether he was actually involved. (Empirical evidence proves he is innocent.)
Before you call the United Nation's record in protecting people abysmal, ask yourself how many countries the United Nations has illegally invaded over the last four years? None!
The UN weapons inspections team is also one very good example of a United Nations program that works. Saddam Hussein, as Colon Powell and Condoleeza Rice both acknowledged in 2001, was contained and could produce no weapons.
My how that tune changed when the administration (not the United States, but the Bush-ites) decided to lead us all down this dark and lonely road all in the name of the same Wilsonian Idealism that conservatives used to love to criticize! Delicious, delicious irony . . .
It's quite easy for the Anon 9:35PM bigot to stereotype their opposition into a homogeneous mindless “knock-off”. However, doing so needlessly weakens what valid viewpoints they may share.
How has the UN Containment and Weapons inspection program been a tremendous success? Have they stopped North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan or any other nation that dares to cross the mighty UN mandates?
Regarding Iraqi nuclear weapons capabilities, if you were the sole individual to possess the factual intelligence on their capabilities, I wish you would have shared it with the world (Clinton and Bush Administration and every other Nations’ Intelligence group) prior to the invasion of Iraq.
I was against the USA invasion of Iraq. But wasn’t the USA led invasion of Iraq done with a coalition and under a UN measure? Now that we are there, we must win this battle, as it has developed into a front on the war against radical Muslim imperialism.
I preferred sending in an assassination team rather than invading a whole country with an army, if the goal was to eliminate a single person like Saddam Hussein. But laws were passed by Congress that was convenient at the time, without the foresight to understand their long-term geopolitical implications.
Also, “cherry-picking your facts” weakens your incoherent logic.
I find it whimsical how commentators try to demonize and personally degrade their opposition, with the supposition that it makes their own arguments’ logic more rational.
Anon 7:41
You, sir, are the cherry picker. And regarding most of what you said in your post, you are sorely misguided. Here are a few corrections:
Point 1:
"as it has developed into a front on the war against radical Muslim imperialism."
What the heck are you talking about? Radical Muslim Imperialism?
According to www.thefreedictionary.com, imperialism is:
"The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."
Does that sound more like what the Muslims are doing to us, or what we are doing to the Muslims?
Get it? We are the imperialists in Iraq! We are claiming that terroritory as under our sovereign control, and making tons of cash for the political elite in the process.
-------------------------
Point 2
"Have they stopped North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan or any other nation that dares to cross the mighty UN mandates?"
Pakistan got the bomb with the help of the United States, so I really don't understand your point here either. India pretty much did the same thing, as did Israel. How you can lambaste the United Nations for not stopping these countries from obtaining nuclear technology while not at the same time scorn the U.S. for making it possible?
Furthermore, Iran and Korea have now seen that the only way to stop an aggressive United States foreign policy from invading whoever it wants to is to--in fact--actually HAVE WMDs to ward off such an attack. Why do you think both have raced to get this technology in the last few years? It is convenient for the US government to denounce such actions while at the same time ensuring that these same countries must seek this technology if only to guarantee their survival. In the long run, this practice puts us in more danger, but the Bush administration has never been able to see two years into the future.
---------
"Now that we are there, we must win this battle."
What garbage! Please, tell me where the magical fantastic finish line is, where the Iraqis will lay down their weapons of open rebellion and start tossing roses into the air?
Wake up, sir. We already won the war and accomplished the regime change. Our forces are not combatants now, they are occupiers. There now exists no finish line, because we are engulfed in a period of occupation and nation building, both options that the candidate Bush in 2000 openly abhorred.
-------------
Point 4:
"Regarding Iraqi nuclear weapons capabilities, if you were the sole individual to possess the factual intelligence on their capabilities, I wish you would have shared it with the world (Clinton and Bush Administration and every other Nations’ Intelligence group) prior to the invasion of Iraq."
Perhaps you should have talked to Colin Powell in 1001, when he said:
"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Now, where exactly was the intelligence that caused Mr. Powell to re-evaluate that assessment?
Answer: THERE WAS NONE. Logically, if it existed, the Bush administration would have shown us by now in an effort to wash their hands.
The intelligence didn't change, sir. Our politics, and our imperial ambitions did. Just ask Condoleezza Rice, pre 9/11:
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
We are being attacked by a rebellion now, because, much like the British forces in the 18th century, we are occupying the land of peoples who no longer wish our presence there.
The weapons inspectors from the United Nations were the one group of people who knew Iraq's true capabilities and stood in the way of George Bush's plans to hype up an attack on Iraq right before the 2002 midterm elections. That is why he had the teams removed before they could offer their final report, in which they would have openly stated that Iraq was sans-WMD. Unfortunately, such a report didn't fit in with TEAM Bush's political timetables, so we invaded anyway.
The fact that anyone can still deny this is living testament to how steeped and abysmal American politics has really become. Please, please, PLEASE do so some research and look this stuff up!!!
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home