22 Comments

1. Marc Cooper:

Yo, Roger. Do I think it’s a good idea that Hizbolla was condemned? You bet. Why not? It’s a very good thing. Did John Bolton engineer this? I don’t know. You tell me. If he did, terrific.

But be careful for what you wish. Now that John Bolton is doing such a great job at the UN, Roger, are you willing to have the United States submit to all UN resolutions? To a UN military command? To the rule of international law as it applies to the Geneva Convention, to Gitmo, to anti-torture provisions, etc.?

This is my off the cuff response.

AFTER Thanksgiving I’ll be happy to post a full and more thougght-out response. Right now my mind is on other things –> http://marccooper.com/gone-drinkin/

Happy Turkeys.

Nov 23, 2005 - 8:02 pm 2. Roger:

Wow… fast response. If this a harbinger of things to come, fabulous.

“Now that John Bolton is doing such a great job at the UN, Roger, are you willing to have the United States submit to all UN resolutions? To a UN military command? To the rule of international law as it applies to the Geneva Convention, to Gitmo, to anti-torture provisions, etc.?”

No, of course not. A UN military command is an oxymoron (unless you’re talking about a sex club). More to come on Pajamas after the break…

Happy Turkeys back.

Nov 23, 2005 - 8:15 pm 3. Bill Quick:

If you’re going to make changes, Roger, permit me to ask what that “Top 25 Bloggers” thing is all about? Just to separate the cream from the crop failures?

I’m honestly not sure what purpose it serves. I mean, sure, Top 25, blah, blah, but if you channel all the traffic to them that already has, you’re never going to build up the lower echelons who really do have room for growth.

I’d ditch it. But that’s just me.

Nov 23, 2005 - 8:55 pm 4. Kevin P:

Roger:

The first time the U.N. condems Hizbolla by name, and anyone who has examined the history of the U.N. and their reluctance to do anything other then rip Israel and try to excuse the constant bombings into Israel would know that doing even this small act required a heroic effort, and all Marc Cooper can come back with is a plea for putting U.S. forces under U.N. command. Pathetic.

I seem to remember predictions that Bolton was a time bomb who wouldn’t be able to handle the nuanced diplomacy that is required to get anything done at the U.N. Maybe he isn’t the drooling madman that many on the left depicted him as. Of course this could just be a cover for Bolton’s secret plan to lop off multiple floors of the U.N. building that we heard so much about.

Nov 23, 2005 - 9:23 pm 5. Pamela aka "Atlas":

a fair accompli, a rhetorical question, self evident

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton took a hard line on the world body Tuesday, showing exactly why his contentious appointment was so important.

Bolton, speaking to reporters outside of the General Assembly hall, said the U.N. should delay passage of its $3.6 billion 2006-07 budget until needed reforms have been adopted.

Bolton’s candor isn’t the usual refined civility — and often dishonesty — that’s expected of a diplomat. But then that’s why we and others were so insistent that Bolton should be assigned to the post of U.S. ambassador to the U.N., even if President Bush had to make a recess appointment, an alternative that he wisely chose.

Worse than being merely ineffective — which it inarguably is — the U.N. is a corrupt organization. The most recent scandal, in which U.N. officials took kickbacks from Saddam Hussein to game the oil-for-food program, is more of a grand example of institutional U.N. depravity than it is an exception to model behavior.

Lesser-known scandals include at least 150 charges of sexual misconduct, some of it abuse of children, by U.N. staff and peacekeepers across the world.

It is also shameful the way the U.N. has become a club for the privileged and the connected. Are we the only ones who chafe at the injustice of delegates from impoverished and oppressed nations enjoying all the luxuries that New York City has to offer while they do little — if anything — to help their countrymen back home?

International Business Daily

Nov 23, 2005 - 9:51 pm 6. Syl:

Good for him.

Fantastic for him!

I mean, this is really something.

Now let’s dump the U.N. and start another bureaucracy. At least it will be good for about twenty years or so before it, too, corrupts.

Then we can start over.

Again.

But the status quo can’t remain. Like the status quo in the Middle East. In Europe.

Out with the old. In with the New.

‘Til next time.

And no, I’m not being cynical. I’m just goin’ with the flow in these strange times.

Nov 24, 2005 - 12:41 am 7. HA:

Marc Cooper,

But be careful for what you wish. Now that John Bolton is doing such a great job at the UN, Roger, are you willing to have the United States submit to all UN resolutions? To a UN military command? To the rule of international law as it applies to the Geneva Convention, to Gitmo, to anti-torture provisions, etc.?

That’s quite a wish list, amounting to a complete surrender of America’s national sovereignty. Be careful what YOU wish for. Somebody might question your patriotism, or at a minimum, your judgement.

And speaking of judgement, your hero Allende - unsurprisingly - turns out to have been a Soviet puppet:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1786802,00.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12682679.htm

The amazing thing isn’t that Allende was bought, but that he was bought so cheap. Then again maybe he didn’t need to be bought at all, but was instead a willing tyrant. I wonder if he blew the money on whores and fine wine instead of propping up his corrupt regime like the KGB suggested. Judging by the outcome, he didn’t spend the money wisely.

Too bad for his Marxist groupies.

Nov 24, 2005 - 4:55 am 8. tefta:

Roger, you will have to decide what you want here on this blog and on whatever the new blog will be.

I for one, don’t give a flying fig about the views of Corn and Cooper and whether they are personal friends from whom you are desperately trying to get approval, or at least understanding, for your apostasy.

There are precious few places to discuss the truth and so very many places where Kool-Aid drinking moonbattery rules, there’s no need to bring it into this formerly cant-free environment.

We are so very familiar with the tiresome party line of leftwing zealots and you may be sure they are, as we speak, feverishly spinning the UN condemnation of Hezbollah so as to assign credit, not to Bolton, but to someone more acceptable to the left.

Nov 24, 2005 - 5:04 am 9. Pixy Misa:

I defer to Charles Babbage for my answer to Marc Cooper’s post:

“On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

Nov 24, 2005 - 5:04 am 10. Ed Poinsett:

Matt Cooper may be a friend, and he’s entitled to his opinion, but he needs to get out more. Bolton is doing a terrific job and thank God Bush sent him there. I don’t see anything in Bolton’s actions or statements that demonstrates he intends to give up soverignty or take the UN at its word. Cooper ought to be up front if he wants Slick Willie Clinton for the job.

Nov 24, 2005 - 9:29 am 11. Roger:

To Bill Quick: Thanks for your feedback. Charles and I both agree with you and are looking into this.

To HA: Thanks for those links about the KGB and Allende. I hadn’t seen them. Although we can never be completely sure about the authenticity of memoirs of intelligence agents, this one makes sense to me, even from my own personal experience of the KGB, which I will detail in my book if I ever finish it. (inundated at the moment as you might guess)

Nov 24, 2005 - 10:11 am 12. Terrye:

I am glad to see that Bolton has brought some balance to the UN. I know that his appointment was a recess appointment. Does that not mean that he will have another vote to suffer through?

I wonder if doing a good job will help or hender him with his critics?

Nov 24, 2005 - 11:03 am 13. Mark Poling:

My personal response to Cooper’s question about willing submissioin to the U.N. is, I’ll be happy if the U.N. can be reformed to the point where it’s no longer a shield (and to mix metaphors, a cash cow) for despots and barbarians, and instead of being harmful to humanity become simply useless. After that, we can talk about where transnationalism should go.

Nov 24, 2005 - 11:06 am 14. melk:

Phew! And I thought it was my tryptophan overdose that made Marc Cooper’s response seem like such a non-sequiter.

Nov 24, 2005 - 12:28 pm 15. Syl:

I like Thomas Barnett’s characterization of the world as consisting of the Gap and the Core.

An international court should concern itself with justice in the Gap and leave the Core alone. Members of the Core have their own justice systems and they work, thank you very much.

Nov 24, 2005 - 12:34 pm 16. Jim Rockford:

Marc — the problem with UN resolutions is that states like Iran, or Sudan, count equally as Ireland or Sweden. So the US should certainly ignore those resolutions that retard freedom (such as UN control of the internet to suppress freedom).

UN Military command? That’s a non-starter (US military under say, the control of genocidaires in Sudan or our friends the Saudis). It’s just dumb.

Nor is it likely (or a good idea) to submit to the “International Law” giving terrorists Geneva Convention protections. Domestically giving Osama the Geneva Convention protections is political suicide, the NYT in 1984 PRAISED Ronald Reagan for refusing to sign that addendum to the Geneva Convention.

Some sort of domestic agreement on what is allowed and what is forbidden is likely; please note that the EU allows (as a result of a late seventies court case brought by IRA prisoners held by the Brits) is much broader than current US rules: sleep deprivation, noise/music, “stress positions” while shackled etc. This is independent of the broader UN.

WHAT is the UN good for? Talking on issues that offer the probability of peaceful resolution, such as technical co-ordination in health issues/crisis (absent political concerns such as the PRC and suppression of SARS knowledge). The UN is not able to fulfill the founding vision of “preventing wars” because it’s too large and faction-ridden, likely to remain so. The UN’s condemnation of Hizbollah won’t save a single life, or stop terror attacks, but it does show some political maturity on the part of the organization and constituent members.

The UN as it has mostly existed, concerning itself overwhelmingly with condemning Israel’s existence in arenas that make no sense (UNICEF for example) is a net drain and talk-shop for terrorist apologists and reactionary anti-Modernists (their anti-Americanism and anti-Israel sentiments show their hands), see Durban conference on Racism. To the degree that Bolton forces more political maturity the UN can do some good on international co-operation in technical areas. Things like Tsunami relief however will ALWAYS be beyond their grasp because the UN is just a bunch of bureaucrats. Good for promoting childhood immunization, bad as Brownie when you need immediate and forceful response to a disaster.

The UN was conceived as an answer to the failure of the League of Nations and WWII. The real lesson IMHO of history is that a strong Atlantic Alliance needs to take action pre-emptively. Far from a model of Fascist aggression, the Atlantic Democracies are so fundamentally pacifist for obvious reasons that the risk is all on the other side (not acting when you can to stop growing threats. Alliances such as the US-UK will always be more effective given human nature. No League or UN can stop Ethiopia or Darfur atrocities from happening.

HA — Pinochet tossed HS kids out of helicopters into the sea, or set them on fire, for protesting. His Secret Police blew up Ronni Moffet, a US citizen, and Orlando Letelier (Allende’s foreign minister) in Washington DC. I’ll take Allende and anti-corruption and the rule of Law in Chile over Pinochet thank you very much.

Nov 24, 2005 - 1:20 pm 17. Roger:

“Pinochet tossed HS kids out of helicopters into the sea, or set them on fire, for protesting. His Secret Police blew up Ronni Moffet, a US citizen, and Orlando Letelier (Allende’s foreign minister) in Washington DC. I’ll take Allende and anti-corruption and the rule of Law in Chile over Pinochet thank you very much.”

Certainly agree with you about Pinochet, Jim. But you must admit it was discouraging to read about Allende’s alliance with the KGB which has on many occasions acted even more hideously than Pinochet (from Comrade Drezhinsky and the Cheka onwards). Of course, I was one of the ones who used to chant “Allende, Allende, el pueblo te defende.” So it goes.

Nov 24, 2005 - 2:52 pm 18. Michael_B:

“But be careful for what you wish. Now that John Bolton is doing such a great job at the UN, Roger, are you willing to have the United States submit to all UN resolutions? To a UN military command? To the rule of international law as it applies to the Geneva Convention, to Gitmo, to anti-torture provisions, etc.?” Marc Cooper

Good grief; and this guy’s a full-fledged editor, helping to captain the fledgling ship - 90 degrees to port with posts like this. This is representative of what can be so boorishly trite, to be kind, about the Left. So often they’re incapable of making a singularly focused comment about something like this resolution and leave it at that. If Bush/Blair found a cure for heart disease, aids, arthritis and the common cold, M. Cooper and other scrupulously partisan commentators would hold their applause and contemplate what the best tactical response should be.

So, if I inform Marc that I use gasoline in my vehicle, Marc’s response will be something like:

“Yes, that’s all well and good, but be careful for what you wish. Now that you’re using gas in your vehicle and it’s working splendidly, are you willing to douse your home with it, lock your family in and then ignite it? Same with your neighbors home? Are you willing to allow petroleum companies and moguls to enfranchise themselves in and usurp the executive and judicial branches of govt., abolish elections and instead appoint friends and cronies to represent the people?”

Why yes Marc, since I use gasoline to power my vehicle - for its intended purpose - that’s precisely what I had in mind. That, and to have you remonstrate with officious, finger-wagging, moralistic one-upmanship.

Further still (and this too is reflective of where the Left leads the debate), it doesn’t even take into account that this resolution, against Hizbullah, in point of fact is the absolute, bare minimum we should be expecting from the U.N., not some high standard which they normally meet. UN Force Again Does Nothing.

Nov 24, 2005 - 6:31 pm 19. HA:

Roger,

this one makes sense to me, even from my own personal experience of the KGB, which I will detail in my book if I ever finish it. (inundated at the moment as you might guess)

My curiousity has been officially aroused. I have to say that I am anticipating your KGB experiences more eagerly than then the next incarnation of the Pajamas Media. Perhaps your talents and energy are misdirected?

I just don’t get the Pajamas Media value proposition yet, and I haven’t felt any compelling reason to visit the site. The whole thing feels like a business built around a catch phrase insteading of finding and satisfying some previously unmet need. I wish I had some great ideas to offer on it because I wish you and Charles and everybody else involved to be successful. But I don’t.

Nov 25, 2005 - 4:29 am 20. HA:

Jim Rockford,

I’ll take Allende and anti-corruption and the rule of Law in Chile over Pinochet thank you very much.

You present a false choice. It wasn’t Pinochet who shredded the Chilean Constitution. It was Allende. And by doing so, Allende paved the way for Pinochet. It was Allende who destroyed the Rule of Law in Chile, not Pinochet. Pinochet just exploited the opening Allende gave him.

Without Allende, there never would have been a Pinochet. And without Allende, those kids would not have been tossed out of Helicoptors. Allende his backers, and groupies deserve a share of the guilt.

I think this is an important point because I would like to think that next time, people won’t be seduced by the next Allende. But given the current near rock-star status in some quarters of an even more transparent thug like Hugo Chavez, I’m not hopeful.

Nov 25, 2005 - 4:48 am 21. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, I wish that he “be careful what you wish for” trope wasn’t already used up. It’s an obvious lede, but still….

In any case, though, the basic point is a good one: the issue is not so much whether the US would be willing to submit to UN resolutions — I suspect that the US has a far better record on that than most any other member state, by the way — but whether we’d sign up to some of the silly resolutions that have been passed. (Consider, eg, the “Zionism is racism” resolutions.)

Similarly, the conventions on torture: I don’t have any problem with the US agreeing to not break prisoner’s bones or beat them to death — but then, contrary to what’s become accepted thought, the US is pretty much the least culpable. What should the UN’s position under the convention on torture be to Castro’s prisons and Saddam’s torture chambers? If this means that the UN can maintain some sense of proportion between the continued beatings McCain went through, as opposed to lap dances and wearing women’s panties in abu Ghraib, I’m happy.

Or the Geneva Conventions: I’ve got no problem with the actual Geneva Conventions to which the US subscribes: detention until the end of hostilities, and execution following summary court martial for combatants captured hiding in a civilian population, or not wearing a distinguishing uniform to separate them from the civilian population, along with the loss of Geneva Convention protections to the forces of an enemy that doesn’t also subscribe to, and obey, the various provisions.

I think you’d find that this would be a very difficult position to maintain about an opponent that blows up civilian wedding parties in noncombatant third countries.

So, yeah, I don’t see a lot to worry about there.

But then, a lot of what you’re sugesting isn’t a UN Treaty obligation as much as it’s an internationalist fantasy.

UN military command actually isn’t that much of a problem, we dealt with that in Korea, and we’re acting under the UN’s aegis in Iraq right now under resolutions from 687 to 1441 — and with the continuing approval of the elected government of Iraq.

I doubt very much whether there is any real issue about Gitmo (see above: detention until the end of hostilities.) The problem is that what’s being demanded is putting Gitmo under US criminal law instead, which is a category error; they’re not criminals, they’re combatants, and they’re maintained under guard to prevent them from rejoining the hostiities. We’re cutting them slack: we could, under the conventions to which the US subscribes, simply have shot them.

The anti-torture conventions? Name another country that has tried and convicted members of its own military for abusing prisoners recently.

So I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned with on those points — but I suspect you wouldn’t be happy with the actual results.

Nov 26, 2005 - 6:54 pm 22. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, I wish that he “be careful what you wish for” trope wasn’t already used up. It’s an obvious lede, but still….

In any case, though, the basic point is a good one: the issue is not so much whether the US would be willing to submit to UN resolutions — I suspect that the US has a far better record on that than most any other member state, by the way — but whether we’d sign up to some of the silly resolutions that have been passed. (Consider, eg, the “Zionism is racism” resolutions.)

Similarly, the conventions on torture: I don’t have any problem with the US agreeing to not break prisoner’s bones or beat them to death — but then, contrary to what’s become accepted thought, the US is pretty much the least culpable. What should the UN’s position under the convention on torture be to Castro’s prisons and Saddam’s torture chambers? If this means that the UN can maintain some sense of proportion between the continued beatings McCain went through, as opposed to lap dances and wearing women’s panties in abu Ghraib, I’m happy.

Or the Geneva Conventions: I’ve got no problem with the actual Geneva Conventions to which the US subscribes: detention until the end of hostilities, and execution following summary court martial for combatants captured hiding in a civilian population, or not wearing a distinguishing uniform to separate them from the civilian population, along with the loss of Geneva Convention protections to the forces of an enemy that doesn’t also subscribe to, and obey, the various provisions.

I think you’d find that this would be a very difficult position to maintain about an opponent that blows up civilian wedding parties in noncombatant third countries.

So, yeah, I don’t see a lot to worry about there.

But then, a lot of what you’re sugesting isn’t a UN Treaty obligation as much as it’s an internationalist fantasy.

UN military command actually isn’t that much of a problem, we dealt with that in Korea, and we’re acting under the UN’s aegis in Iraq right now under resolutions from 687 to 1441 — and with the continuing approval of the elected government of Iraq.

I doubt very much whether there is any real issue about Gitmo (see above: detention until the end of hostilities.) The problem is that what’s being demanded is putting Gitmo under US criminal law instead, which is a category error; they’re not criminals, they’re combatants, and they’re maintained under guard to prevent them from rejoining the hostiities. We’re cutting them slack: we could, under the conventions to which the US subscribes, simply have shot them.

The anti-torture conventions? Name another country that has tried and convicted members of its own military for abusing prisoners recently.

So I don’t think there’s anything to be concerned with on those points — but I suspect you wouldn’t be happy with the actual results.

Nov 26, 2005 - 7:32 pm

Write a Comment

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