39 Comments

1. richard mcenroe:

The fatal weakness of the UN is the fatal weakness of the EU. Both are executive bodies with no accountability to an electorate or checking and balancing branches. There is no voter or judge who can demand Kofi’s head; shamelessly, he will cling to his office until the end of his term and then announce himself vindicated.

The only way to rein in the UN is simply to not participate.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:26 pm 2. VietPundit:

The only thing you need to know about the UN is that Lybia chaired its Human Rights Commission. What a joke.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002944

BTW, I just linked to the same Peretz article, but for a different angle.

http://vietpundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/decline-of-liberalism.html

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:32 pm 3. heather:

Mark Steyn is correct. He compared the UN to a tub of ice cream mixed with manure. It may once have been ice cream, but it isn’t anymore, not even if you wish upon a star and clap your hands so Tinker Bell can live.

My first thought when hearing about the 10,000 tsunami orphans was… the UN has plenty of experience running pedophilia centres, I guess it will be front and centre, “helping” the children.

The UN, by its very existence, gives the world a perfect excuse to maintain a lofty moral posture, while ignoring little things like genocide in Africa. It is the definition of hypocrisy.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:39 pm 4. Katherine:

Kofi is a perfect representative for the corrupt, useless, money sucking, dictator enabling organization that is the so-called ìUnited Nations Organizationî. I want him to stay at his post as long as possible as an Exhibit A of what the UN really stands for: bloodshed, abuse, graft, ineptitude, arrogance, bureaucracy for bureaucracyís sake and corruption.

The UN is beyond reform. Any organization that depends on money from member countries should be obliged to have completely transparent finances. Why not the UN? If our publicly traded corporations can somehow comply with GAAP rules, sure the UN can? And what is more public than the trust that all the member nations are suppose to have in the UN mission of peace and cooperation, funded by the taxpayers?

From the inception the UN was nothing but a foolís game. It was created at the time when people had grandiose ideas of world governance and thought that globally organized power will prevent future wars. Well, after a more than a half a century of running the experiment we know that the thing that prevents war is individual freedom and liberty in democratic nations, not transnational organizations. It is time to put this yet another experiment of the 20th century central planning to rest. We can use the money that we pour down the UN ratís hole for a real aid to poorest nations. But as long the UN exists I donít want anybody else but Kofi to represent it. Rotten secretary should stand for rotten organization.

PS. For anybody who wants to bring elimination of smallpox as one positive achievement of the UN: in the bookì The Coming Plagueî there is this statement from American epidemiologists working at the time for CDC in Atlanta ìWe eliminated smallpox despite WHO, not because of itî. Read the book, if you donít believe me. Somehow I trust those ìCDC cowboysî more that the UN officials.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:40 pm 5. Yehudit:

Apparently, the UN is mounting an internet spin campaign with a new website just about Oil-for-Food.

Which needs to be thoroughly and repeatedly fisked.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:52 pm 6. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The UN is a failure for several reasons:

1) Lack of transparency

2) The worst form of multiculturalism, where people from “rob them blind” cultures attain positions of power.

3) Legal immunity from prosecution, so even when caught, the malefactors just give up their lush jobs and move on.

4) The natural failures of all bureaucracies.

To see the future of the EU, look at the present of the UN!

Finally, regarding the smallpox epidemic. Few realize that the eradication of smallpox in the wild was done with a lot of help from the USSR. Why were they so helpful? If enabled a truly vile Soviet Plot [tah tah!] that approaches science fiction or James Bond (in this case, enabling the sinister [sssSSSsss] organization Ken Alibekov worked for).

Once the smallpox was no longer a threat, people were no longer immunized, making smallpox bioweapons much more deadly. Also, the Soviets were able to get good samples of the most dangerous lines (Indian-??? is what they chose for weapons).

It isn’t a coincidence that they ramped up production of obscene amounts of smallpox agents (loaded into ICBM warheads aimed at every major US city) after the vaccinations stopped. As far as I know, the warheads are still there and still capable of hitting major US cities with retargetting times in the seconds (so much for CLinton’s improved safety by having everyone pretend to aim their weapons into the Indian Ocean).

A lot of this happened under the great Nobel Peace Prize winning peacemaker, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Thus the UN and even Donald Henderson were inadvertently helping with a terrible WMD.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:56 pm 7. Steven Smith:

Liberalism now needs to be liberated from many of its own illusions and delusions. Let’s hope we still have the strength.

“We”? Peretz is about as “liberal” as Heinrich Himmler. I would take critiques of liberalism a little more seriously if they came from someone who didn’t have the ideological predilection to shove his foes into the ovens.

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:56 pm 8. someone:

The United Nations deserves better than Kofi at its head, obviously

Obviously? Well, let’s see. Kofi is a pretty good stand-in for the truth of the UN. But I understand there’s an unemployed guy cooling his heels who’d be perfect for this job. He has plenty of experience in corruption, rape, encouraging evil, rousing folks to hate the US, and engaging in brazen deceptions that help others feel good.

So, what about it? Saddam Hussein for UN Secretary-General.*

*In the spirit, of course, of Cesare Borgia for Pope…

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:02 pm 9. someone:

Troll droppings in aisle 3.

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:04 pm 10. Morgan:

SS:

That’s what’s known as “overheated rhetoric”.

What an interesting twist you’ve put on it. Instead of the usual “Hitler”, you’ve compared him to “Himmler”. Very clever. Clever indeed. Yes, very clever. Very, very, clever.

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:12 pm 11. Katherine:

Damn it, John, this time I read your post before going to bed, which means that I can tell the chemically unaided sleep bye-bye.

I have a marginal comfort in the fact that I had my last smallpox booster shot in 1977 (I was traveling with my father in India), but I understand that our buddies the Soviets were working on some extra-special Variola virus, which the ordinary vaccination would not necessarily prevent.

BTW, where are we on the smallpox immunization front? I thought that at one time we all would have an option to take a shot and that the Prez got one himself. Somehow it all fizzled out. I still think I would opt for a booster shoot. I am willing to take the risk and I am willing to pay the money. Why canít I?

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:36 pm 12. BurbankErnie:

“But I understand there’s an unemployed guy cooling his heels who’d be perfect for this job. He has plenty of experience in corruption, rape,..”

Bill Clinton?

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:39 pm 13. JK Ribera:

“We”? Peretz is about as “liberal” as Heinrich Himmler.”

Mr. Simon, if you are reading, I would consider banning the person who wrote that from your website. He is either insane or a complete idiot. In either case, he is unbelievably tastless.

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:47 pm 14. chuck:

John,

How do you make an ICBM an effective delivery system for smallpox? The usual MIRV warhead is about the height of a man and maybe 18″ in diameter and its contents would have to be dispersed. Biological weapons sound scary, but I think they are hard to use. Now if one infected birds with something that only kills humans, you might be onto something. The flu, for instance…

I think plain old nuclear weapons in the .4 to 5 megaton range would be more effective. Certainly they would kill more people faster.

Feb 21, 2005 - 11:58 pm 15. David Thomson:

ìWithout economic transparency, those of us who grew up imbuing the UN with our most idealistic hopes will never recapture them.î

Roger Simon will get his wish. Economic transparency is a done deal. The American people no longer trust the United Nations. That alone is enough to guarantee the necessary changes.

Feb 22, 2005 - 5:10 am 16. Salt Lick:

“Ignorance is Blix, Kofi.”

Anond

Feb 22, 2005 - 5:26 am 17. Knucklehead:

“Without economic transparency, those of us who grew up imbuing the UN with our most idealistic hopes will never recapture them. Future generations will never believe in the possibility of any kind of world government.”

I’ll vote for economic transparency. I don’t mind one bit if, by some magic or the wonders of economic transparency some folks imbue their most idealistic hopes in an improved version of the UN.

One of my deepest wishes, however, (right up there with the wish that somebody would give me a winning lottery ticket), is that “future generations will never believe in the possibility of any kind of world government”.

Can someone please ’splain to this knucklehead why so many folks believe that a “world government” represents the potential solution to problems? Take that famous phrase, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Among Americans and much of the “western democracies” it provokes a knowing chuckle. I have no doubt that there are places in the world where it would not get a chuckle but, rather, would send a serious chill down one’s spine. Now imagine Ruud Lubbers (that can’t be a real name for this guy, can it? Comeon, this is all staged right down to the chief villain’s name, isn’t it) standing in front of you and saying those words. Or Don Kofi.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:56 am 18. charlotte:

Imagine was such a pretty song in its day. Only its lyric idealism was hideous: no countries, no religion, no possessions, people only living for today, and the world being and living as one. People define themselves by their tribes, beliefs, things, history and aspirations, and differences from one another. What species did Lennon envision inhabiting this One World Nutopia?

“We announce the birth of a conceptual country, Nutopia. Citizenship of the country can be obtained by declaration of your awareness of Nutopia. Nutopia has no land, no boundaries, no passports, only people. Nutopia has no laws other than cosmic. All people of Nutopia are ambassadors of the country. As two ambassadors of Nutopia, we ask for diplomatic immunity and recognition in the United Nations of our country and its people.”

John and Yoko wanted us all to be UNpeople, apparently.

Feb 22, 2005 - 7:49 am 19. Roger:

Knucklehead, I do not regard world government as the “solution” to anything, but more of a bare necessity when we live together on a tiny planet in an incomprehensibly gigantic universe. Some place to have formal dialogues with each other, imperfect as it always will be, seems like a good idea. That after millions of years of life, that that organization, born only sixty years ago or so, about ten seconds ago, relatively speaking, leaves a lot to be desired is scarcely amazing. You don’t have to give up so quickly. (Uh, yes, there’s the League of Nations. That was twenty seconds ago.)

Feb 22, 2005 - 7:55 am 20. Knucklehead:

I suppose I jumped the gun with my bemusement about why anyone would want a “world government”. Before such a discussion could even begin to take place we’d need some idea of what the conversants believe is the purpose of government and then expand the discussion to include why a “world” version would provide benefits over versions less (for lack of a better term) decentralized.

One of the problems I face when thinking about or trying to discuss the notion of a “world government” is that I make the assumption, I suppose, that any “world government” would, of necessity and definition, have precedence over more localized (i.e, national) governments.

Other people seem to have a less expansive notion of what a “world government” would be. While some surely envision such a thing as an “authority” that supercedes more localized forms, there are clearly those, Roger perhaps being an example, who envision such an organization as a forum - “Some place to have formal dialogues with each other.” No doubt it is my own lack of imagination, but I continue to fail to see how a “place to have formal dialogues” qualifies as a “world government” nor do I see much hope for dialogue, formal or otherwise, as a particularly promising method of solving the world’s problems. And if the point of the “world government” is not to solve problems then, by all means, knock oneself out, make oneself happy, and dialogue and debate until one’s heart is content. Such activity is unlikely to have significant impact upon my life or those of people in, as an example, Somalia which seems to have no government whatsoever - people will continue to benefit or suffer as their far more local situation allows or demands.

My thinking about political philosophy and “science” is, admittedly, rudimentary but I have so far found little evidence that a boundless expansion of the scope of a “government” provides benefit to humans. While the people who live, for example, in what we know as Somalia might live happier lives or have much greater welfare if they had some recognizeable government influencing their lives, I fail to see how anything as expansive or nebulous as a “world government” would bring them benefit. While I am certainly an occupant of “the world”, IMO “the world” is infinitely too far away for me to wish to be subjected to a “world government”. The US is as large an entity as I care to be a citizen subject to the whims of its government. Perhaps I’m hopelessly selfish.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:03 am 21. Morgan:

Knucklehead:

A meta-comment, if I may.

I greatly appreciate your quick recognition of the need to settle the question “what are we talking about” before beginning to debate the value of the “what”. Too often overlooked.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:14 am 22. Anthony (Los Angeles):

The UN is a great and necessary idea.

Something like the UN is, but the organization itself is fatally flawed. Not only for the lack of accountability and financial transparency you mention, but for another reason: after the great decolonizations of the late Fifties and early Sixties, the UN rushed to admit corrupt, dictatorial regimes that paid only lip-service to the ideals of the organization. These countries have formed bloc after bloc against free countries, pushing all sorts of nonsense through (remember the “Zionism is racism” fiasco?) and coddling tyrants in the name of a faux-comity.

The only way to save the UN is to either massively reform it, or eliminate it and form a new organization comprising only liberal democracies.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:16 am 23. Rick Ballard:

“Perhaps I’m hopelessly selfish.”

Doubtful. Morgan alludes to the minor problem involved. I’ve always interpreted “govern” to mean control. If it just means “talk” then I suppose I could support a world wide talk society dedicated to dialogue. I’d have to say that the UN has performed magnificently as a global talk shop, where Togo and the United States both have the right to say what they please. True equality.

If govern means what I thought it meant, then all the UN provides is a fine example of how not to proceed. Transparency in fiscal operation would be nice but it would not resolve the structural issues that allow the faceless bureaucrats of the WHO to decide that the deaths of millions of black and brown babies has a lesser value than keeping DDT from being used to prevent those deaths.

The UN has succeeded in its primary purpose - the prevention of a world wide conflagration between major powers. Keeping it as a talk shop might be worthwhile but it needs to be stripped of its syncretic functions and returned to the status of a forum where all nations may be heard - and ignored.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:37 am 24. Bostonian:

*Why* is anything like the UN “needed”?

Do we believe that governments are incapable of forming alliances and working out small differences without the support of a centralzed bureaucracy?

Are we supposed to believe that an international bureaucracy actually has the power to resolve truly deep differences between nations that cannot be otherwise solved?

***

Nations who want to cooperate with each other already do so.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:43 am 25. Bostonian:

Rick, I’m not even sure the UN had anything to do with preventing “a world wide conflagration between major powers.”

I think the policy of mutual assured destruction did that. No UN help needed.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:44 am 26. Knucklehead:

Rick Ballard,

We apparently suffer from the same lack of imagination regarding what a government is. I’ve always had this notion that the “goverment” was that thing, that organization, that authority, which could coerce me to do what I might otherwise refuse to do and from which I have little or no recourse. As examples, “the gubmint” can coerce me to recycle paper, glass, cans, plastic, etc. If I refuse to do as they want I am subject to some form of punishment at the government’s hands. The gubmint can force me to obey traffic laws (or pay the price for not doing so), compel me to send my children to school until they are a certain age, subtract money from my paycheck, etc. A government can even go so far as to conscript me and send me to war.

The form the government takes may allow greater or lesser participation and greater or lesser recourse to resist coercion, but without the ability to enforce its will it seems to me it would be something other than a government.

I have done conversational battle with some staunch supporters of the UN as a forum to “give voice” to the concerns of otherwise powerless governments. I have even taken this as far, in one case, as to have the UN supporter admit that the UN has no significant power, accomplishes very little of benefit, is subject to disturbing levels of corruption, does harm rather than good in some cases, but that (and I quote here) “the forum is more important than the substance”. I am far too intellectually feeble to ever grasp the global profundity of that statement.

(BTW, thanks for “syncretic” - a far better “word for the day than “hoosegow”. My mom was forever threatening to send to to the hoosegow. Her syncretic abilities were quite extensive but she lacked controlling legal authority to commit me any hoosegows.)

Feb 22, 2005 - 10:05 am 27. PJ:

The UN does provide one avenue, albeit an imperfect one, for nations to meet, discuss and f**k up…I mean, solve common problems. In addition, their presence in the US means they are under scrutiny by a free press–which in this case consists mainly of Rossett–but that’s better than nothing.

The answer to its corruption is transparency. If we can make that the rule of the day, many members will suddenly scurry home or o/w self-police themselves. It would be ugly but worth it.

Feb 22, 2005 - 10:12 am 28. Kyda Sylvester:

I don’t wish to pile on, Rick, but I too disagree that the UN had anything to do with preventing that conflagration. I’ll go a step further and say I find it absurd on its face that the Soviet Union and Communist China should have been granted equal “security” powers with Great Britain and the US (and even France). As far as I’m concerned, the United Nations stepped off on the wrong foot on day 1.

Any organization that has multiculturalism and moral relativism as its basic building blocks is doomed to eventual failure. The UN worships the status quo, always has, always will.

Feb 22, 2005 - 10:19 am 29. Stan:

What if we look at the UN this way:

Nations are bloggers and the UN is the editorial board at the NYT…

Bloggers submit pieces to the NYT and the J-school board decides what gets printed. With all that input going to the NYT the other papers would hardly be necessary, we could save some trees. Bloggers, of course, would remit payments to the NYT for this service. It would “solve” all those messy squabbles like Estrich/Kinsley and E. Jordan v. blogoshere… It would be much cleaner. It would take a lot of pressure off of our beloved Roger - he could focus on getting those writing projects done (wink)…

The rest of could go about our Stepford lives serenely confident that those editors have our best interests in their hearts…

Feb 22, 2005 - 10:35 am 30. Rick Ballard:

“Liberalism now needs to be liberated from many of its own illusions and delusions.”

“I don’t wish to pile on, Rick

It’s really OK with me to pile on. If Peretz’s advice is to be taken seriously, then someone has to posit the illusions and delusions from which liberalism is to be liberated. I stated the standard argument for the existence for the UN (with a verb implying causation). There is a temporal correlation between the existence of the UN and the absence of great power conflict. The illusory (or delusory) aspect applies to “prevention”, whuch loops back to “govern”.

Eventually the argument will return to the nature of man but ya gotta start somewhere and we are currently experiencing a dearth of well founded liberals here in the comments area. Although, I must say that world government is not exactly a classically liberal construct.

Feb 22, 2005 - 10:47 am 31. ed:

Hmmm.

Sorry folks but there are two basic problems:

1. The UN is outmoded and useless.

The simple fact is that the UN was designed for a time when travelling was still rather difficult. At that time you either travelled on a ship or took your chances with air travel. That is not the case now as private individuals, and certainly governments, can afford to charter long-range jet aircraft.

Then there’s the whole international phone/internet structure.

So the UN being a place where people can talk, that pretty much describes anywhere in the world. Which is why so many various meetings and international get-togethers seem to take place all over the world. The UN is not necessary.

2. There is nothing that requires a world government to be democratic.

I’ve heard many people talk about a “world government” and how necessary it is. But when I ask them to prove that such a government would be democratic, it’s like their brains shut down. The simple fact is that there is no necessity for a world government to be democratic. If such a thing came to pass, it would be nice. But there are many governments that aren’t democratic at all. A prime example is the EU, which is decidely anti-democratic.

So if anyone here really thinks a world government is a good idea, please explain in detail why that government couldn’t possibly be a tyranny.

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:19 am 32. Knucklehead:

Did we avoid enormous, perhaps even nuclear, war between the USA and USSR because of some series of actions taken by the UN? What were those actions? How did the UN mitigate any of the violent conflicts which have taken place since it has existed? Are there examples of conflicts which have been avoided for no other reason (or primarily) because of the existence of the UN?

How does dialogue help other than to make the parities to it feel better for a while? Isn’t the point of dialogue to reach agreement which is normally some level of compromise and/or cooperation? Once agreement is reached there must be some way to enforce agreement should one or more of the parties fail or refuse to live up to the agreement.

The UN has no ability to enforce the terms of any agreement (or to even force a dialogue in the first place) on any but its weakest members and, even then, it must rely upon strength borrowed or rented from other members.

The UN is not a “world government”. It is a forum for facilitating international discussion and the creation of non-binding agreements. Perhaps the facilitation is valuable but it is not inherently essential. Nations, powerful and otherwise, are still free to enter into whatever agreements they wish and are still subject to coercion by more powerful nations and alliances.

Perhaps I am too harsh. But I don’t see how the UN has proven to be a worthwhile endeavor. It was, IMO, a worthwhile “idea” or pipe dream, but so was esperanto.

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:31 am 33. Knucklehead:

Ed!

Whether you did so intentionally or not, you brought to mind the issue of NGOs. As if the UN doesn’t “give voice” to more than enough GOs that don’t represent anything approaching the will of the people they represent, the UN provides the preposterous cloak of “moral authority” to NGOs - who the heck elected the NGOs? Even more reason to get rid of everything but the auditorium, translators, and oratorial scheduling services.

Feb 22, 2005 - 11:35 am 34. someone:

I agree entirely with Knucklehead. And why is the UN taking up so much of the continent’s most valuable real estate — with demands to be given more thereof? Move ‘em to help gentrify some blighted neighborhood in the city… Or, as one local councilman suggests, Mozambique.

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:03 pm 35. someone:

Incidentally, I sense certain contributors here salivating already.

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:44 pm 36. Knucklehead:

Someone,

I vote for Mogadishu. Since they have no government of their own to speak of let’s allow them the benefits of having the representatives of so many wandering among them. All I ask is that we get periodic reports about the reactions of the Somali powers that be to claims of diplomatic immunity in defense of bad behavior.

Feb 22, 2005 - 12:46 pm 37. Knucklehead:

Someone,

So I followed your link to Michele Malkin and her link to the new UN blog and have a looksie at their most recent entry which is titled UN: 1 in 12 Children Worldwide Involved in Child Labor. This entry tells us that UNICEF has published some “disturbing numbers” and gives us a link to the “full story”.

Maybe its me, but with a lede like that at the UN’s blog I assumed the link would take me to the UNICEF report publishing the disturbing numbers. But no, the link takes us to the Billings Gazette. Why is the UN linking to a news report about a UNICEF report? Perhaps they just don’t have the time to track through the bureaucracy to find the actual report. Then again, maybe they don’t want the unwashed masses having a look at their report and questioning their research and statistical methodology.

Feb 22, 2005 - 1:01 pm 38. Sandy P:

John Adams called it on June 30(?), 1826, his message to Americans on the 50th anniversary of the Dec of Independence:

“Independence forever.”

I agree.

They don’t need to jaw-jaw face-to-face anymore.

And their new home should straddle the “Occupied Territories and Israel proper.

That should start a few turbans twirling.

Plus, get them out of Geneva and to Africa.

Closer to their constituents.

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:02 pm 39. ed:

Hmmm.

1. Actually the UN made things much worse during the Cold War. With China and the USSR both having vetoes in the UNSC, it essentially paralyzed that organization into ineffectiveness. As the proverb goes, for evil to win good men must do nothing. And the UN pretty much facilitated doing nothing.

2. NGO’s are really like little governments. They participate and use use what clout the UN gives them to pummel those nations that they disagree with. Mostly the USA.

There really is no saving either the UN or most of the NGO’s. The one single thing that I’m looking forward to is the public accounting of the Tsunami disaster relief. In a few months quite a few news organizations are going to review the Tsunami relief, which will bring it back into the public focus. Probably around August since that’s a slow month.

By that time there should be plenty of ammunition to show how corrupt and wasteful the UN and the various NGO’s have been with donated money. Americans aren’t all that exercised about Oil For Food because it’s not their money that got stolen. But a **lot** of people, especially kids, generated a lot of cash. Many people did without during the New Years holiday so they could contribute.

If that money gets ripped off and stolen, as we all know it has, then this is THE single issue to beat the UN to death with. So far the UN has operated with very little publicity lately, which is the perfect forum for theft. I plan on doing a lot of pushy research come June to start laying down the prep work for the backlash.

It’s one thing to steal the government’s money. It’s quite another to steal little Timmy’s Christmas money that he donated to help people. As the American Red Cross found out during the post-9/11 fund raising scandal.

Expect people to actually froth at the mouth over this.

Feb 22, 2005 - 7:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: