37 Comments

1. Ben:

I would like to make the following modest proposal: Someone should introduce a bill in Congress which provides that the UN gets no more US taxpayer dollars (not even a dime) until (1) the UN comes COMPLETELY clean about Oil for Food; (2) the UN pledges its complete cooperation with the Congressional investigations; and (2)Kofi Annan either (a) resigns or (b) offers a convincing reason why he should not.

Nov 30, 2004 - 5:28 pm 2. Catherine:

synchronicity!

I have just this moment brought today’s copy of the FT upstairs to blog as an “OT” on some thread or other.

And here I find Roger’s new U.N. post!

This morning’s headline:

UN to issue alert over spread of nuclear arms

Seriously.

That was the headline. U.N. to issue alert over spread of nuclear alarms.

I actually burst out laughing. And not in a mean way, either. I guffawed.

Even my husband laughed.

Nov 30, 2004 - 5:29 pm 3. Catherine:

When I regained my composure I thought: Jeez, is this some kind of trap?

I mean, what’s the goal here?

What’s the hoped-for result?

The way I see it . . . first the U.N. issues an alert over the spread of the nuclear arms . . . then the U.S. takes the bait and invades somebody in an effort to stop the spread of nuclear arms . . . and then BAM!

The U.N. issues an opinion that the U.S. has violated international law.

That’s the only possible result I can imagine in the real world.

Nov 30, 2004 - 5:34 pm 4. ms anne:

hey catherine:

gotta luv the laughs–not with them–but AT them.

and what is an “OT”?

Nov 30, 2004 - 5:37 pm 5. ricpic:

Since the US pays 22% of the UN budget what’s to keep the US from defunding?

I admit to complete ignorance in this area. Anyone know the mechanics? Is it just a matter of the Bush administration sending up a budget with less alloted for UN funding to the congress? If so would this be so suicidal, politically? In parts of the coasts, yes; but in “the heartland,” no.

Nov 30, 2004 - 5:58 pm 6. PeterUK:

Roger,

You have hit the nail on the head,who does have the right to question the actions,motives and efficacy of this vast unelected bureaucracy?

Certainly not the man or woman in the street,it seems to be none of the business of our elected politicians when some nobody from Outer Arseholia starts laying down the law.

It is incredible that there are those who decry their own democrtically elected governments yet would happily hand over governace of their countries to an international version of Ali Baba the Forty Thieves.

If the UN Secretary General had a capable army then there would be no limits to his power.

Nov 30, 2004 - 6:02 pm 7. jedrury:

The slow emerging reality of the KofiGate Scandale:

Safire called for resignation yesterday morning. Journalist Claudia Rosett in Hannity and Colmes last night called for resignation. Senator Coleman tomorrow says the same in the Journal, Investors’ Business Daily called for Annan’s resignation this morning.

The UN crowd in a feeble gasp will come to his defense; Madeline “Robin Redbreast” Albright and Dick Holbrooke, the media’s heir apparent for State now relegated to weighty panel discussions at the Kennedy School moderated by Michael Kinsley.

Taking down Kofi will probably depend on the Volcker report being leaked to the Times and then voila – the Times “suddenly” discovers this scandal (”What gambling in this casino?”), and notice how the president remains above the fray and his hands are clean. Not bad for a Texas cow puncher !!!

Can there be a Oliver Stone movie script here or a Charles McGarry spy novel ?

Roger, can you whip out a piece here !!

Nov 30, 2004 - 6:39 pm 8. notthisgirl:

OT means “Off Topic”.

Nov 30, 2004 - 6:45 pm 9. Catherine:

Ms. Anne

“OT” means “off-topic;” at least it better mean off-topic, since that’s the way I’ve been using it all this time.

Nov 30, 2004 - 6:54 pm 10. Catherine:

more synchronicity

It just so happens that I came across Rasmussen polling data on U.S. voters and the U.N. this morning:

Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of the UN while 42% have an unfavorable view. Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters see the UN as our ally in the War on Terror and 17% see it as our enemy.

[snip]

As for the United Nations, 64% of Bush voters have an unfavorable view of that institution. Twenty-three percent (23%) have a favorable opinion. Among Kerry voters, the numbers on the UN are 68% favorable and 16% unfavorable.

The amazing thing, to me at least, is that people have a much worse view of France than of the U.N.:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters have an unfavorable view of France. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 25% have a favorable opinion of that nation.

Nov 30, 2004 - 6:58 pm 11. Catherine:

I don’t think it can possibly be good for the Dems that they are the party of the U.N.

But at least that 68% favorable figure explains to me why you never, ever hear a Democrat call for U.N. reform.

Nov 30, 2004 - 6:59 pm 12. Catherine:

PeterUK

I am unbelievably sick of unelected elites.

Elected elites are bad enough.

Nov 30, 2004 - 7:00 pm 13. Rick Ballard:

ricpic,

UN dues can be suspended by a simple act of the legislature. I would prefer that the act state that dues will not accrue during the suspension (as in lost forever) and that a joint committee be responsible for certification of whatever changes are required. Helms Biden gave the certification duty to the President which (to me anyway) is unconstitutional.

The UN would find true happiness in Brussels next to the EU complex. Moving them there would also be advantageous with regard to ease of future targeting.

Nov 30, 2004 - 7:33 pm 14. Kyda Sylvester:

Oh yeah, Kofi needs to go (and take his bogus Peace Prize with him), but don’t expect much to change at the UN.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, following his tenure as UN Ambassador in the 70’s, called the United Nations an insane asylum and a decomposing corpse (who am I to argue with Pat Moynihan). In the ensuing years it’s only gotten worse. I’m afraid I don’t see much hope for the UN.

Nov 30, 2004 - 8:26 pm 15. Morgan:

Rick,

While I admire your optimism, I don’t want any break with the UN that is potentially revoked. I’d prefer that we used the scandal as grounds to permanently pull out of the UN. Just list all its crimes over the last decade, mumble something about the camel’s broken back, and declare that we are washing our hands of the whole sordid institution, that we hope anyone who wishes to stick it out succeeds in reforming the damn thing so we can work with it as a partner in the future. Then walk away.

Let them stay in New York, sans diplomatic immunity, if they want. They won’t, which tells you just about everything you need to know about the stinking bloated gasbags inhabiting the place.

As for Annan, I don’t think he has been a particularly bad king of the UN. The primary function of the position is to snidely equate the US with various thugocracies around the world – he’s done a bang-up job at that. So a few million people died while he fiddled with his Kofi, big deal. His son made a mint, and he is much beloved elsewhere.

If he’s slow out the door, I hope the doorknob leaves a dent in his backside.

Nov 30, 2004 - 8:35 pm 16. ambisinistral:

UNSCAM is appalling, but Kofi Annan tried, and largely succeeded, at doing something far more insidious and dangerous. His attempts to elevate the position of Secretary General from a beaurocrat responsible for day-to-day UN operations to a defacto Head of state is where he caused the most damage.

Yes, we cut off, or drastically cut back, the funds until there is significant reform at the UN. And at the top of that reform is reinforcing the notion that the UIN is not a World Government in any way, shape, or form. It is nothing more than a forum for nations to gather and discuss common interests and global problems. As such, the Secretary General has no credentials as a diplomat and should refrain from overstepping his rather limited brief.

Eh, on that note, ask me what I think about NGOs being involved in treaty negotiations some day.

Nov 30, 2004 - 8:50 pm 17. ambisinistral:

Ooops, only meant to bold face the word not.

Nov 30, 2004 - 8:51 pm 18. Morgan:

ambisinistral -

To your “world government” point, the UN today came out with its declaration that only the security council can authorize preemptive war.

Nov 30, 2004 - 9:00 pm 19. Wallace:

Well gosh….what’s the use of being Secretary-General of some big organization anyway if you can’t enrich yourself at the expense of humanity.

And if they can Kofi, while they’re at it they ought to change the title. Secretary-General. What does that mean…he takes dictation while he’s rallying the UN troops?

Nov 30, 2004 - 9:01 pm 20. PeterUK:

Catherine,

So am I, but there are such fun things that can be done with unelected elites and tumbrils,elected ones are harder to deal with that way. But we may as well deal with it now before the Secretary General gets an army.

For the time being why not ship the UN to Alcatraz with a boat once a month? I’m sure a lot of the hangers on would soon remember they had left a goat under the grill in Outer Arseholia and have to rush back.

Nov 30, 2004 - 9:05 pm 21. Morgan:

PeterUK -

Alcatraz has potential. Can we limit the boats to one every three months? And make them out of stitched raingear?

Given the UN’s history, I believe a UN army would be grounds for preemption.

Nov 30, 2004 - 9:14 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Morgan,

One step at a time. This editorial should force the MSM to take a bit more notice. The UN’s approval has to drop to the level of the French before definitive action (aside from dues suspension) is taken.

The real kicker will be the release of sat imagery following Iraqi truck caravans in the runup to the war. Following them from Iraq through Syria to the Bekaa Valley. Coleman had some unkind words for the French and Russians as well as Kofi. Having some Russians on film supervising the unloading in the Bekaa would sure be interesting to watch. Maybe Blix could make some guesses as to what was on the trucks.

The Israeli’s will probably help us in checking out whats in the depots in the Bekaa. Those bunker busters we just sold them will prove to be of great utility.

I vote for Devil’s Island rather than Alcatraz. Better climate.

Nov 30, 2004 - 9:37 pm 23. Samuel:

A rare stop of late into Roger’s blogdom.

Catherine

UN to issue alert over spread of nuclear arms

Ahead of the curve and cutting edge that UN! The only reason you and your husband can afford to laugh is that we have a President that is more than willing to run passed their corrupt, sorry and complacent asses and just do wht needs to be done. Koffi should resign if he had any honor or dignity, but I fear dignity has nothing to do with it.

Roger

History will mock them for that. The chickens are coming home to roost

This is a very dark moment as far as I am concerned. I believe the MSM and fellow anti-Bush compadres take their opposition to levels of shame and to the point where one could acccuse them of having blood on their hands. They are so utterly devoid of proper principle and responsibility that whatever worse may happen is worth it if they can just stick it to this President one last time. They are in such a blind rage and frenzy that they have succeded in turning the disdain and disrepute they endeavor to heap on Dubya onto their own heads.

–

I told my wife recently…

“The Democrats and MSM lost this election not because many don’t believe in some of what Democrats believed in, they lost because they have chosen to be irrelevant, immature, and worthy of mistrust. In other words they threw their principles away for… well what the hell for I may never know, if I did maybe I would still be a Democrat, but now my dear I am just a statistic, yes now I am one of the new 4% “shift” that now claims the Republican Party as their home. I did so because… well because I believe in being relevant.

Also, nothing personal honey, but I am competing for the political hearts and minds of our dear children, you are invited to compete but I warn you, I’ll be damned if I will sit in silence and allow them to get one sided views and fed corrupt trash the MSM endeavors to feed them. They will not be ignorant of the facts. Good luck, I don’t plan to losing.

Lest anyone fear the above was a challenge to our marraige, don’t worry our marraige is strong and politics has little importance in our relationship, but politics is more important to me and she is used to that. I am indeed determined to break “one party rule” in my family.

Dec 1, 2004 - 1:40 am 24. Samuel:

I’ll add to my above comments that I thought the election would somewhat stem the tide of growing disdain I have for my “former” political allies, but in truth my disdain and disgust if anything has grown. Bottom line, my mistrust of the MSM and political left is becoming more firm and hardenend by what I see going on around me. They just don’t get it.

Dec 1, 2004 - 1:51 am 25. David Thomson:

ìI don’t think it can possibly be good for the Dems that they are the party of the U.N.

But at least that 68% favorable figure explains to me why you never, ever hear a Democrat call for U.N. reform.î

The national Democratic Party died on November 2, 2004. The body is starting to really smell bad. Itís time for the funeral service followed by the required burial. The Democrats can still win local races, governor mansions (ie, Montana), congressional and US Senate seats—but likely never again the presidency.

The last Democratic president was Bill Clinton—the ìend of historyî candidate. The Cold War was over and the American voters wanted to begin emphasizing the domestic issues over defense. Terrorists were perceived as mere nuisances. This indulgence in la-la land thinking is over. We now realize that our national leader must, first, last, and foremost, be able to convincingly deal with war issues. The Democrats cannot even begin to compete in such an environment.

Dec 1, 2004 - 4:08 am 26. Matt Evans:

*Maybe Blix could make some guesses as to what was on the trucks.*

Toys for under-privileged children?

Dec 1, 2004 - 4:37 am 27. rastajenk:

If someone, with a high profile and significant gravitas, or some nation other than the US, floated the idea that the time has come for an international forum where membership is limited to democracies, where the only votes that count come from nations that let their people vote, do you suppose that might get some traction very soon? It seems worth pursuing to me.

Dec 1, 2004 - 4:43 am 28. David Thomson:

ì…where membership is limited to democracies, where the only votes that count come from nations that let their people vote, do you suppose that might get some traction very soon?î

That is unofficially already taking place. Alas, I am compelled to bore you to death and repeat once again: President Bush was reelected. The United Nations as a viable organization is therefore finished. We will now work around this moribund entity. The only reason that its death is not officially announced is the awkwardness, for instance, of bluntly informing the French that India is militarily more important to us than they are. Our current relationship with the UN is similar to the married couple who live separate lives but pretend otherwise when making public appearances.

I get the distinct impression that many people have not yet come to terms with the importance of John Kerryís defeat. This was not just another election. The world has been changed forever.

Dec 1, 2004 - 5:19 am 29. Hogarth:

Kofi’s “resignation” will not only be spun as gently as Dan Rather’s, the effect will be the same.

None.

Organizations as corrupt as the UN, or as inbred and biased as CBS, will not change to any significant degree with the replacement of the puppet at the top. All that will change is the outward appearance.

Not to be insensitive, but you can put a wig and a tan on a cancer patient, but the cancer is still there.

Dec 1, 2004 - 5:37 am 30. rastajenk:

Well, I can’t argue with you, David, but as long as the impetus comes from here, it will be too easily spun as yet another example of American imperialistic hubris, and that hogwart’s assesment, above, will seem more likely. It has to come from some strange new source, like an Australian-Polish-Japanese coalition or something like that.

Dec 1, 2004 - 5:49 am 31. Knucklehead:

While it wouldn’t break my heart to see the UN tossed onto the ash heap of history I don’t see that outcome as either necessary or, other than personal and petty satisfaction, particularly desirable.

Someone above in another recent thread mentioned that UN is useful as a “forum” for diplomatic discussions and venting. And its death would set the Moonbats to wailing and gnashing of teeth that would reach a level that would prevent the sane among us from getting any sleep. That’s fine – let the sick old beast live since it can’t move fast enough and has no teeth and, therefore, it presents no real threat anymore.

I have no idea whether “reform” is possible and I suspect that even if reform is possible the benefits would be relatively mild.

As an American the reform I’d like to see is for the US to reduce funding to the same levels as other major nations. Stop footing half the bill. I’d also like to see the UN HQ moved out of the US. Let some other nation deal with the thugs that corrupt organization attracts.

As a “citizen of the world” (if I might be allowed to wear a costume for a moment), I’d like to see changes in the composition of the Security Council. It just doesn’t make sense for today’s world let alone the future. The tensions and potential for common cause are all wrong anymore. What, for example, has France really got to do with anything? And how does the EU fit – why should a United States of Europe have two seats (England and France) when the United States of America gets only one? And Japan probably matches the power and importance of England and France combined so why doesn’t Japan have a seat? And if China then why not India? Between the two they represent almost 1/3 of the world’s population and probably 2/3 of the nasty little problems “globalization” and economic growth represent.

Why leave France on the SC to play the US and China off against one another? Why not bring India and Japan, who have a direct interest in what China does, into that tension? It strikes me as near lunacy to have a thing like the UNSC and leave Asia represented there only by China and Old Europe holding two seats. Whassupwitdat?

Dec 1, 2004 - 6:35 am 32. Matt Evans:

Knuckle,

In my opinion, reform is impossible without significant levels of transparency and accountability. The UN will never be held accountable because it won’t let itself be. We can cut off funding and kick them out of the US but look no further than AL-Kofi’s recent decisions as evidence that the UN does not believe it SHOULD be accountable to any one country.

Dec 1, 2004 - 7:23 am 33. David Thomson:

ìAnd how does the EU fit – why should a United States of Europe have two seats (England and France) when the United States of America gets only one? And Japan probably matches the power and importance of England and France combined so why doesn’t Japan have a seat?î

These are the type of awkward question which guarantee the survival of the United Nations. The United States and its allies prefer to allow such questions to remain officially unresolved. Try to imagine the poor guy forced to pick the prettiest girl among the three who are standing in front of him. The poor slob is in a no win situation. No, we are better off, for the time being, not to cross all of the ìtîs and dot all of the ìiîs. Tacit understandings often work out better than explicit formulations.

Dec 1, 2004 - 8:28 am 34. Knucklehead:

Matt,

I agree with you. I don’t believe it is the least bit possible for the UN or anything similar to have any real and permanent influence on “world peace”. Whatever purpose it serves, even if it weren’t corrupt and more harmful than beneficial at the moment, will be marginal at best. The world is not ready, and may never be ready, for a World Government. Klatu was cool but full o’, ummm…, stuff.

But I do think a concept such as the UN could serve marginally beneficial purposes. A fire house needs to be taken to the pig stye to clean it out though.

I understand and, to an extent, agree with Dave also but I would rather see the thing brought more closely in line with current reality. Dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” isn’t necessary but tossing France out on its ear and gaining some “goodwill” from Japan and/or India seem to me to be worth the catfight. Heck, just the catfight about reform would be worthwhile since it would keep the kleptocrats busy scurrying around to save their necks rather than trying to cut our throats.

And since I believe China is the next big challenge we face I wouldn’t mind seeing whatever small value that might be had by bringing the two next biggest players in that part of the world into the picture.

But I’m not married to any of it. Alcatraz and a quarterly supply raft works for me if I can’t have precisely what I suggest.

Dec 1, 2004 - 9:55 am 35. David Thomson:

ìDotting every “i” and crossing every “t” isn’t necessary but tossing France out on its ear and gaining some “goodwill” from Japan and/or India seem to me to be worth the catfight.î

I would bet my life savings that neither India nor Japan want this to occur. India doesnít need to irritate the Pakistanis and Japan prefers that that the Red Chinese save face. No, this sort of cat fight will be avoided. My guess is that it will take around ten years before the unofficial reality is officially sanctioned. It will be like the old bossí son tacitly taking over the reigns, but allowing the fatherís name to remain on the office door. Everything becomes official only after the elderly gentleman dies or decides to “retire.”

Dec 1, 2004 - 10:27 am 36. CERDIP:

re: chickens coming home to roost. Note the date!

Dec 1, 2004 - 2:28 pm 37. PeterUK:

Having had a rethink,Alcatraz too close to civilisation,Devils Island too warm,then it struck me Ascension Island, http://geosciences.ou.edu/~bweaver/Ascension/remote,damp,miserable,look good with the UN building on it,nobody would ever want a posting there,the UN would die of attrition or pneumonia.Your navy could make sure the boat never came.

Dec 1, 2004 - 3:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: