Let no one say the UN can’t act in a crisis. With North Korea threatening to conduct an in-our-face nuclear bomb test, the UN Security Council has just wheeled out a threat of its own. If North Korea goes ahead, the UN will respond with — well, go ahead and make a guess:
A) The immediate expulsion of North Korea from the UN.
B) The urgent assembly of a coalition to launch precision missile strikes anywhere that North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Il might next pop up, including one of the few dependable heat sources in the country — his motorcade.
C) Public pressure on North Korea’s neighbor, China, to actually comply with its UN treaty obligations on refugees, and offer immediate safe passage or asylum to all North Koreans who wish to flee their country — which might simplify the North Korean problem by emptying the place overnight of almost everyone but Kim Jong Il and the usual visiting Iranian missile-and-bomb experts.
D) “Unspecified action.”
If you guessed D, you are clearly spending precious time following the UN’s abject failure to stop nuclear-armed rogue states, when you could be reading Rep. Mark Foley’s emails. But you guessed right. Of course, “unspecified action” is not the only weapon in the UN arsenal. If that doesn’t work, there’s always “further action,” — or, this being North Korea, maybe another round of “additional action.”
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
4 Comments
1. Chip Seiple:Didn’t the Supremes give the right to seize by eminent domain?
Oct 6, 2006 - 7:35 pm 2. Brian:Declare Turtle Bay a blight and kick the UN over the pond to France. Let Chirac deal w/ it.
cs
But wait!
There’s more!
The “unspecified action” will be taken at an unspecified date, according to an unspecified time schedule!
Is the UN a great organization, or what?
(Parenthetically, for those interested in the sordid history of UN Secretaries General, see this fine article by Joshua Muravchik, which includes his recommendation for the Kofster’s replacement.)
Brian
Oct 6, 2006 - 11:34 pm 3. Alex Reed:Lest we feel our wits begin to turn, like the old man and his Fool wandering the moors on a stormy night, haunted by the foul fiend, as we contemplate the virtual forest of “actions” the UN has in store for Iran, our ubiquitous Undersecretary of State, the artful Nick Burns, has graciously come before the TV cameras yet again to clarify the situation and cool our fevered minds with wise words. Our latter day Talleyrand imparts the news that at the UN, “certain actions” are at hand. “Further talks are needed”, “we have a lot of work to do”, but “it’s complicated”. He said this in the first week of October. He also said this in the first week of September. I haven’t yet checked August, July, June, etc., etc. One would have greater confidence in a furtive blancmange in a Brooks Brothers suit. Left to his own devices (which appears to be the case), Mr. Burns will still be deep in further talks as the first Iranian mushroom cloud sprouts where Tel Aviv used to be. Which leaves me, yet again, hard up against the same question: Why has President Bush abdicated leadership to the apeasement/Arabist/CFR-Teatime-with-Dictators-R-Us laddies?
Oct 8, 2006 - 9:54 pm 4. Alex Reed:Please forgive the off-the-thread Iranian wool gathering in my previous comment. The experience of The Nick Burns Show seeking egress from my TV screen sent me rather into orbit.
Oct 9, 2006 - 5:49 amI would be delighted to see all the items on your menu à la Kim, save D, served up pronto. A speedy relocation to the big Courvoisier tasting room in the afterlife for Dear Leader courtesy of the U.S. Navy would make for a stellar start to the liberation of the long-suffering people of his country. While the Navy guys are busy with item B, might they just make a quick detour, B+, to dispose of Kim’s nuclear playpens? RE item C: Do you think that China might be more willing to go for item C, if we could guarantee them that all refugees from North Korea would be moved along out of China to another country for their care, medical treatment, and recuperation within five days of their arrival in China? The need for C would be obviated if A, B,&B+ happen quickly.