What I’ve seen suggested here is no more than the old fashioned alliances without the sanctity of a formal body (U.N.) which can get to be a real drag. I have the same love affair with our professional politicians who rarely,if ever, have done an honest day’s work but “feel our pain”

Sometimes being the only grownup in the room sucks.

Which should teach us UN-phobes that the US does in fact need some kind of international body to give the stamp of legitimacy to our actions (outside Europe and our own sphere of influence in Central America and the Caribbean). The task for us is to reform the UNSC so as to make it a serious and effective instrument for conferring legitimacy on our efforts to destroy the jihadists.

Or maybe re-form it entirely. perhaps we should create an alternate security council comprising serious nations that will not make excuses for terrorism. This body would comprise major powers that actually have the ability and willingness to project power abroad and would be focused purely on issues of rogue states, international terror, WMD proliferation, piracy, and the like, and would expressly NOT involve itself in perennial UN PR fests such as North-South , muslims-vs-all, let’s-all-kick-Israel pissing matches.

Call it the Group of 14. It would include the current UNSC members plus Japan and Germany; also crucial Asian democratic powers like South Korea, Australia, India, and Indonesia; and rising democratic powers like Poland, Turkey and Brazil. Other nations would be added to the Group upon demonstration of solid democratic credentials AND– this is at least as important– a willingness to project power abroad as part of the combined struggle of civilized nations against rogue states, terror, piracy etc.

Over time, this Group would become the place where anyone who actually wants to prevent Darfurs and nuclear NoKoreas/Irans would come to get things done, and the UNSC be exposed as little more than an international Hyde Park. In other words, this approach does away with the great 20c sovereignty lie, ie the myth that any sovereign state is de facto a civilized member of the “international community.”

Think of it as the international security equivalent of school choice. Not wise to do away with the public schools, but definitely wise to inject some real competition, and let the best approach win.

Serious nations would want to join the Group, and its stringent standards would induce better behavior, just as the prospect of joining the EU helps separate the democratic, progressive Polands and Czechs from the authoritarian, reactionary Ukraines and Slovakias.

Ron Wright

*****

Roger,

Here’s a comment I made at TCP’s OP-ED Section (minus a few typos) re the “Global Test.” I think they’re appropriate for this discussion.

My two bits. John Loftus (FOXNEWS contributor) said Saturday, the Mullahs will have nuclear capability within as little as four months. Run a google search on him and check him out for yourself.

If the Mad Mullahs of Iran become a nuclear threat before the election, Israel will take them out. This time it will probably require some special forces on the ground because of the hardening of the targets. Also the Iranians learned from the previous Iraq strike to disperse their production facilities. The U.S. will issue the usual “tisk tisk.” After the election it will be up to the U.S. whether President Bush is relected or not.

[...]

Read more

They show the cover of a new book out about how frogistan has always been our enemy.

Louie didn’t help US because he was fond of democracy.

My undestanding is that Charles Gibson of ABC and Bob Scheiffer of CBS will ne doing the remaining two presidential debates. I can flat out guarantee that neither one will ask Kerry anything that will trouble him; nothing on Cambodia, nothing on how France and Russia were taking kickbacks from Saddam, nothing on UN complicity in Saddams crimes.

That is why I don’t see why the GOP does these debates at all. The absolute best they can get from it is a draw. By definition Bush and Cheney will spend their time playing defense. Then we will see polls describing them as “defensive”. Duh.

I don’t hold Bush or Cheney primarily responsible. But you have to wonder about whoever is their chief campaign strategist. Who is that again?

I think the Bush people wanted to look like they were not afraid to enter the lion’s den.

But aren’t there two more debates after this? who is doing those?

What’s the over/under on the number of times the Veep will mention the term “global test”?

Speaking of which, I think I found an original copy of the test (done with proportional fonts, no less!), which is reproduced here:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-is-global-test-many-of-my-regular.html