Saturday, January 29, 2005

The UN's Struggle For Relevancy

The Sudanese government is bombing Darfur again. Today, many indications point to North Korea and Iran developing nukes. And just what is the UN doing about any of it? In fact, a good question to ask would be just what does the UN do, period? Before the invasion of Iraq, it seems that the UN could have played a significant role in getting Saddam to cooperate with inspections, the right way. Could it be that the UN was and is powerless to do anything of any noteworthy value? Could it be that the UN has outlived its usefulness? Why would the organization set up to settle disputes between the nations, sit back and allow the systematic elimination of Sudanese Christians and allow two very acerbic nations to develop nuclear weapons, without taking some form of action, even if it is just taking a symbolic vote to condemn these actions? I find it interesting that those who defend the UN and see it is as some magical panacea to peace on earth, cannot adequately explain what the primary function of the UN is.

I know they can recite the UN Charter, I know they can quote the bylaws and explain procedure. They can even tell us what the UN was set up to do. But where is the evidence that anything constructive is happening? Where is the peacemaking? Where are the diplomats negotiating, where are they condemning the actions of the unjust? In fact, where do we ever read that the UN General Assembly does much of anything, except when they find some way to blame the United States for the ills of the world?

A tsunami hits Asia and before the complete reports are in, one of the top UN officials starts calling the US stingy, before any serious thought could be given as to what the US government could donate. Terrorists attack the US using airplanes as weapons and before the dust even settled, UN officials and apologists start telling Americans and the rest of the world that US policy is to blame. They tell us that because we support Israel and the Saudi Royal family, we have created a great misunderstanding in the world of oppressed Muslims. And as a result, many oppressed Muslims now feel there is no other hope for them, but to kill innocent people. So essentially, what we appear to have is, a world body designed to settle disputes, taking sides in a dispute.

But meanwhile, North Korea and Iran are preparing to join the nuclear club, the Sudanese government is openly engaging in the slaughter of innocent people, and the UN does nothing.

Now before you jump the gun and automatically lump me into the right wing, let me just say that although the UN is severely broken, I believe that it can be fixed. Before you start believing me to be one of those anti-UN zealots that think that the only answer to combat this blatant neglect and inefficiency is to withdraw and kick them out of country, let me say that the UN is not broken beyond repair. But action must be taken soon or the UN will lose any relevancy it has left, faster than you can say, “League Of Nations”.

First, Kofi Annan has to go. Besides being too closely involved with the “Oil for Food Scandal”, he is the most ineffective leader in UN history. All of these conditions I have described have developed and worsened under his watch.

Secondly, his replacement should be Bill Clinton. The former President is well liked abroad and especially in the European Union, where much of the vocal opposition toward the US has come. I know the right wing will protest wildly, loudly, and persistently. But if Bill Clinton were Secretary General, I believe he could greatly assist in bridging the gap that has developed between the US and the rest of the world. And in doing so, I believe he would do it in a way as to not compromise the goals and interests of the United States.

And finally, it will take some understanding on the part of America’s critics.

Europe especially needs to take an active interest in the War on Terror. Muslims are moving into Europe at accelerated rates. Most of them are good people that want to make better lives for themselves and their families. They want to have opportunities that do not readily exist in their nations. But with them, come some unsavory elements that are hell bent on destroying Western Society.

It would pay for Europe to think about who these radical terrorists would be targeting, if there were no America to hate. China and the rest of Asia would do well to realize that a nuclear armed North Korea would risk destabilizing the whole continent. Europe and Asia would do well to consider that Iran may soon have nuclear capabilities, which could easily threaten and destabilize both continents.

These problems exist despite what the UN and apologists would like to think and say. They will not be going away anytime soon and stand to only worsen, if the UN continues to do nothing. Time is not on our side. It is time for the UN to act and act soon. It is time for the UN to return to its original function and return to some reasonable form of relevancy, before it is too late.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

That's a really thoughtful piece on the UN and it is quite balanced too. You do not advocate tossing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, but working on making the UN effective once again, making it live up to its original principles. I agree 100% with that.

I also like the idea of Clinton being Secretary General. He might be quite instrumental in healing some rifts.