Why do people pretend that the United Nations is a place for the countries of the world to solve serious problems?
In order to solve serious problems, there must be a serious effort. There must be serious people who approach problems with a serious attitude. There must at least be agreement that what is decided will be taken seriously by the people who make the decisions. And finally, there must be a seriousness of purpose by the world community in order to if not enforce then certainly enjoin the parties involved to obey the mandates of the world body.
Anything less than this – anything that comes up short means that the United Nations is a failure as an institution where deadly serious conflicts are addressed in a serious manner by serious people with serious solutions proposed.
I want to hear no more about “They’re doing the best they can.” An attitude like that can get a lot of people – many of them Americans – killed.
I don’t want to hear any more platitudes like “As long as they’re talking with each other, they’re not shooting at each other .” That kind of stupidity presupposes that an enemy doesn’t use the “talking” part of the equation to get ready to shoot while the rest of the world that opposes him actually thinks that talking will solve the problem.
And I will brook no more nonsense from starry eyed idealists who see the United Nations as the “first stirrings of world government.” The UN has had nearly 60 years to “stir” and all it has done is dry up, harden, and ossify into a brittle, broken down bureaucracy so patently corrupt and full of hatred and envy that its towering cynicism in claiming the diplomatic high ground is used by the thugs of the world solely as a way to sway western public opinion so that they can continue on their genocidal way without interference from the only people that can stop them.
The United Nations is not a serious place. It is a place where people pretend. It is a place where people pretend to address the serious issues of the day when they have no desire to do so nor seriously engage any process that would begin to solve them. It is a place where people pretend that what they do or say matters one whit to the gimlet eyed thugs whose murderous designs on the rest of humanity are downplayed and even rationalized. And it is a place where people pretend that all of this is so despite knowing full well that it is not.
Adults do not pretend. Adults deal with the world as it is not as they would like it to be. In this, the UN then has become a playground, a fantasyland for childish notions of “peace” and “stability.” It has become the number one enabler of genocidal maniacs, brutish aggressors, and fanatics with an eye on Armageddon. And since the consequences of facing down the evil is too painful, they pretend the evil doesn’t exist.
There may have been a time in the bi-polar world created by the rivalry between the USA and USSR when the UN served a purpose. In this one instance, it was indeed better to pretend that what the world body did mattered, that the talking-shooting scenario was important to the continued existence of life on the planet. The alternative was unthinkable.
But that was when both superpowers recognized the efficacy of the UN fig leaf. They could climb down from confrontation without loss of prestige or face. In this case, it was mutually assured pretending that kept the peace and prevented the missiles from flying.
Such calculations are lost on our adversaries today. To them, the UN exists as a PR adjunct, a useful tool to massage western media and sap the will to resist among the populations of the only people with the wherewithal to stop their mad designs from coming to fruition. In this, the UN has become part of their media strategy.
Witness President Ahmadinejad’s response to the UN Security Council on his nuclear program. He is defying the will of the Council by not halting the Iranian enrichment program. But he has successfully paralyzed the world body by agreeing to talk about the Iranian nuclear program in the context of possibly ending it. No one really believes he has any intention of ending the program nor stop the Iranian’s quest to build a nuclear device. But the UN will pretend that he does and more talks will ensue with pressure placed on the negotiating parties to give in to the mullahs in order to avoid conflict. The original resolution ordering him to cease enrichment activities by August 31st conveniently forgotten.
We have seen this pattern many times; in Darfur, the Saddam fiasco, and now the continued demands for the disarming of Hizbullah. If one resolution doesn’t work, another one is passed as the world body basically pretends that the other resolutions do not exist. In any other context, such activity would be sufficient cause to commit the lot of them to a hospital mental ward for an examination to determine how much in touch with reality the members are. But in the case of the UN, this is reality.
Am I exaggerating? Not by much. This is part of the game of diplomacy as it is played out in the early 21st century. Process trumps results. And as long as that is true, the UN will remain an impediment to world peace and a place where the enemies of civilization will continue to press forward, secure in the knowledge that stopping them will entail a radical shift in the way that the world community deals with such threats.
Isn’t it therefore time to take the question of whether the United States should remain in the UN out of the fever swamps inhabited by right wing wackos and place it squarely in the mainstream of conservative thought for serious discussion.
It’s not the money. The $3 billion or so we give to the UN (about 27% of the UN’s total budget) is a pittance, a hiccup in our $2 trillion budget. Congress gobbles up $3 billion as an appetizer. It’s about what we spend on elections every 4 years. I could care less about the money or even if the UN gives us our money’s worth which is an extraordinarily dumb yardstick to decide whether or not we should remain a member.
And forget all the good the UN does in the fields of refugee assistance or world health. Those worthy and necessary functions could be handled out of Zurich or Geneva. The bureaucracy is already there and the United States should continue to support the humanitarian goals of these and other vital world agencies. But using these agencies as an excuse to remain beholden to an organization that has proven its uselessness time and time again in the face of determined evil seems irrational to me. Better we form regional alliances and “Coalitions of the Willing” to confront and control both the state and non-state entities that threaten us. This does not mean war. It means showing resolute strength in the face of aggressive nation states and extra-state actors. While it may not deter them it could cause them to alter their plans, always a good thing in diplomacy or war.
We have reached a point where the UN no longer serves the interest of the United States in any meaningful way – at least not in any way that we would miss. If others wish to continue to play pretend with the fate of the planet, let them. For our part, we should withdraw from the United Nations unless and until they reform themselves so that they can seriously address the problems that now threaten our civilization.
Any other course smacks of suicide in my book.
7:00 pm
Here, Here Rick; about time someone advocated this!
I’m right there with you!
I’d love to be President for a day; that would be about the second thing on my “To Do” List; call up Annan, ask him to come to the Oval Office, and tell him he had 90 days to dismantle, and move Turtle Bay out of the country, to Europe!
It would be classic…..
8:27 pm
Rick, as usual, you are right on.
The un is a joke and coffeecanan is a giant JOKE.
The U.S. needs to get outta the un, they are for the terrorists and against the us as we can see evertime coffeecanan opens his pie hole.
9:02 pm
Rick,
If you’re not earning your livlihood writing, you should be.
Regards,
-the Canine Pundit
http://caninepundit.blogpsot.com/
10:14 pm
I for one care about the money.
That $3 billion could be spent on a lot better things, like, oh I don’t know, building a fence along our southern border.
But then there’s about as much of a chance of that happening as there is of the money being spent trying to stop genocide in Africa.
Never mind.
11:09 pm
One last push for a hint of sanity at the UN. I believe Asia is next in line for the Secretary General’s position. The US should push for Japan’s Koizumi’s appointment. If it’s thwarted and we get another US hater we immediately pull out.
4:40 am
Roundup!
Mickey Mouse is still angry. I overheard the words "sniper rifle", "Astronomical Union" and "this shall not stand." Pluto has not made a public statement at this time.Did you know it is difficult to buy a frig …
7:27 am
Great, until the last line, Rick. You gave it all away when you said, “we should withdraw from the United Nations unless and until they reform themselves so that they can seriously address the problems that now threaten our civilization.”
It is painfully obvious that the UN will never reform. To suggest we give them the opportunity only serves to perpetuate that corrupt institution. Why pretend? Sixty+ years has proven that the UN is a failure. It is past time to get out! Let’s not mince words. We should withdraw from the UN now!
7:30 am
I am all for the UN out of the US!
The only thing the UN does right is that it gives a first name and letterhead to any despot. The UN also allows them ambassodorial cachet and “ligitimacy” in the arena of “real” inter-national democracies.
7:49 am
US OUT OF THE UN! (YOU’RE KIDDING, RIGHT?)
I like this kind of thinking, let’s move them to the top of the world on a polar ice cap.
...
11:31 am
“Herding cats” comes to mind, and some of those cats have rabies.
3:18 pm
Rick,
You’ve been in my bookmarks for at least a year or so but I only recently realized the extent of your genius and began reading daily. “mutually assured pretending” (MAP) is a fabulous phrase, not only to describe the UN, but many other human relationship disfunctions. Marriage, education, politics, etc. I think there’s a whole book there! You and ShrinkWrapped should team up to write it.
3:59 pm
We can play that game too, or did that never cross your mind?
Adults do not pretend. Adults deal with the world as it is not as they would like it to be.
The way the world IS means that sometimes even Adults have to “play pretend” – pretend to play the game while advancing their own interests under the table. The idea that “Adults dont play pretend” is, itself, completely childish—as is your recomendation that we boldly announce “Its my ball and I dont want to play anymore.” .
4:00 pm
If Iran can pretend to talk while arming itself for war, can’t we be smart enough to do the same thing?
5:23 pm
When “pretend” ends up as a permanent state and prevents reality from intruding, we usually commit the poor soul to a mental institution.
As I said, there were uses for this fig leaf during the cold war – when pretending staved off Armageddon. But that day has passed and now the cold reality is that those who are using the UN to attack our interests and the interests of our civilization are depending on people who pretend their evil doesn’t exist to advance their own agenda.
And what’s with this “My ball” business? What are you referring to? The reference is so obscure that it makes me wonder if you understand anything I wrote?
7:11 pm
Rick,
//There may have been a time in the bi-polar world created by the rivalry between the USA and USSR when the UN served a purpose. In this one instance, it was indeed better to pretend that what the world body did mattered, that the talking-shooting scenario was important to the continued existence of life on the planet. The alternative was unthinkable.
But that was when both superpowers recognized the efficacy of the UN fig leaf. They could climb down from confrontation without loss of prestige or face. In this case, it was mutually assured pretending that kept the peace and prevented the missiles from flying.
Such calculations are lost on our adversaries today. To them, the UN exists as a PR adjunct, a useful tool to massage western media and sap the will to resist among the populations of the only people with the wherewithal to stop their mad designs from coming to fruition. In this, the UN has become part of their media strategy.//
The one thing that is so different from that day and now is the Soviets were atheists. This life was all they believed in, this was it. One shot, boom, over. If they screwed it up and got themselves wiped out, that was it.
The Islamofascists believe they are going to die martyrs and receive a reward for starting a nuclear holocaust or at very least, for killing infidels. There is nothing secular, nothing at all to make them think twice on this. They have nothing to live for anyway, they are oppressed, the mullahs and the royals in the emirates keep their people down, Heaven, with a bunch of virgins waiting on them, looks pretty promising to them.
The UN was a place where the Soviets could save face when stood down, by someone. The Jihadists care nothing about standing down.
Good piece, sir. I enjoyed reading it.
7:23 pm
Sorry – I thought it would be understood. I do tend to play a bit fast and loose with metaphors.
“Its my ball and I dont want to play anymore” refers to the phenomena whereby a child will get so pissed at being on the losing side (say a game of basketball) that he will take his ball and leave the game, thereby ending the game and forcing the other kids to either give up or find a new ball and start a new game – either way its a pain in the ass and makes them like the person even LESS than they already did. Put simply, its a metaphor for the attitude “If I dont get what I want, I will ruin it for everyone else too”.
Right now the UN is the only avenue which many countries have to effect the world. US cooperation allows them to at least feel like they have some influence, an illusion that is actually quite useful to us. If we pull out, not only will our enemies now have uncontested control over the instituion that, like it or not, defines “international legitimacy” (who will veto all those “Zionism = Racism” resolutions then?), it will be a sign of disrespect to every other country, including our current allies, that feel the UN is their only avenue to effect the world situation. We are big, but not big enough that we can disrespect every other country and still expect to get our way through force alone.
YEs, Iran is a problem and we should be preparing to deal with it, but there is no good reason why we can’t do both (talk and prepare for the worst) at the same time.
8:24 pm
I’ll do you one better. How about UN out of the US? Can the US evict the UN like landlords evict their renters, or something along those lines? If it was possible I’d like to shove the whole shebang into the transporter and beam it into deep space. But that solution notwithstanding, is there any organization here in the US that has seriously researched what is needed to move the UN someplace more closely aligned to its global mission, whatever that is? Say Syria, or Vanuatu, or Kofi’s own Ghana? Anyone knowledgeable about efforts being taken in this direction post here.
10:59 pm
>Right now the UN is the only avenue which many countries have to effect the world.
No it’s not. The United Numbskulls is so inept that it can’t really affect anything. Well, for the better, anyway. The UN is an empty lie.
>If we pull out, not only will our enemies now have uncontested control over the instituion
So what? When has the UN ever been able to do anything anyway? Never. It will be a place for idiots and wackos to gather and, well, pretend that they mean something.
>it will be a sign of disrespect to every other country, including our current allies, that feel the UN is their only avenue to effect the world situation.
Well, it’s time for them to grow up and realize that it’s all a fairy story, and that they don’t have the power to affect the world situation other than by fixing their own screwed up countries.
11:35 pm
Sadly this is the response I have come to expect from people with overinflated notions of what the US has the power to achieve on its own.
In fact, the most likely reaction to such a proclimation would be an increase in their willingness to work together against us – only fools think that there isn’t a whole lot more room for it to get worse than it is already – and while we may be stronger than all of them individually we are NOT stronger than all of them put together.
Unfortunatly, that seems to be what is going to happen. Our mouths are going to write a check that our asses are going to balk at cashing once the true cost is known.
But, whatever, it all falls on deaf ears anyways. Its like Thucydides said (quoted, but obviously not understood, by Dan Simmons) – “So thoroughly had the present prosperity persuaded the Athenians that nothing could withstand them, and that they could achieve what was possible and what was impracticable alike, with means ample or inadequate it mattered not. The reason for this was their general extraordinary success, which made them confuse their strengths with their hopes.â€
But, what the hell, this is all going to fall on deaf ears anyway. You want to believe and so you will believe, and you wont stop believing until its too damn late. God help this Country.
12:13 am
Of course, we no longer live in an age where “strength” can be measured purely in terms of firepower and the ability to destroy an enemy on the battlefield, but even in that area the public perception of our abilities seems to be much more optimistic than it should be. I recommend
AFGHANISTAN AND THE FUTURE
OF WARFARE: IMPLICATIONS FOR ARMY
AND DEFENSE POLICY
“At Operation ANACONDA in March 2002,an intensive pre-battle reconnaissance effort focused every available surveillance and target acquisition system on a tiny, ten-by-ten kilometer battlefield. Yet fewer than 50 percent of all the al Qaeda positions ultimately identified in the course of the fighting on this battlefield were discovered prior to ground contact. In fact,most fire received by U.S. forces in ANACONDA came from initially unseen, unanticipated al Qaeda fighting positions. How could such things happen in an era of persistent reconnaissance drones,airborne radars,satellite surveillance,thermal imaging,and hypersensitive electronic eavesdropping equipment? The answer is that the earth’s surface remains an extremely complex environment with an abundance of natural and manmade cover and concealment available for those militaries capable of exploiting it.”
After 5 years, and even more fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies have an even better understanding of how to exploit the vulnerabilties of our “light ground forces supported by precision weapons” approach.
12:19 am
Part of this is that we are the lone superpower. But “superpower” doesn’t really mean much anymore. We are so dominant militarily that our enemies fight us from the world’s civilian population where our advantage is decreased or eliminated. They fight us on the world media where they are actually stronger because of their creativity, flexibility and nimbleness. Our lumbering bureaucracy can’t keep up, even if we had the cultural knowledge and insight to compete with our adversary’s message.
Similarly, the UN is lumbering tool that is easily manipulated. As the superpower, like it or not, we are seen by the rest of the world and the UN as too powerful for our own good. Like the biggest, toughest guy on the playground, everyone wants to see us fall. Even our allies secretly (and not so secretly) want us brought down a notch. I think playground politics are an apt comparision. We are the big bully to many, the protector to some, but resented by all.
We are also in a declining cycle with the UN and much of the world. The UN/international community does nothing, or does not support us, so we “go it alone,” which breeds further resentment. The increased resentment results in less UN support in the future and more obstruction of our policy objectives. This naturally confirms to us the UN/international community is useless and increases the chance we will “go it alone.” The cycle repeats. This downward spiral could have serious negative consequences for us, but I don’t see any way to avoid it.
12:34 am
r4d20,
Interesting quote which points to a larger truth: In the cold war, our primary military problem was having enough firepower to defeat the large numbers of Soviet personnel and equipment. Finding and fixing targets were not the problem (it’s not hard to locate a Soviet tank division), destroying them was. Today, the situation is turned on its head. We have more firepower than we know what to do with, but we’re unable to find and fix targets. The military is adjusting to this new reality as quickly as the bureaucracy and Congress will allow by fielding more reconnaissance and developing intelligence to queue those recon and surveillance platforms to look at the right places at the right times. Such transformation is slow, though, because it’s not just about equipment, but also training, personnel and especially people’s mindsets and preconceptions.
1:31 am
Andy,
I agree completely. Our current ability to accurately bomb a target far exceeds our ability to find targets to bomb.
Check out
Crack in the Foundation for a good argument that we are getting ahead of ourselves.
It is further assumed that information superiority will permit “dominant battlespace knowledge†or “the comprehensive awareness of all the decision-relevant elements within a defined battlespace, and the ability to predict, with a very high degree of confidence, near term enemy actions and combat outcomes.â€
When objections are raised to this VERY optimistic assesment, the reply from hardcore advocates of NCW is akin to “future technological advances will make it a reality” and that we should begin to plan for that reality now. The result is that new officers are being trained to operate under this assumption (which can be made to hold true in wargames and excerises) and it is already morphing from the status of an ideal vision of the future into a vision of a current reality.
9:49 am
r4d20,
A lot of that “dominate battlespace knowledge” theory that’s popular in the military right now I think is more focused on conventional threats. Insurgency, by it’s very nature, isn’t an inherently military problem and ultimately can’t be defeated militarily. However, information dominance theory does have application in situations like Iraq, and is one reason why we are buying predators as fast as they’re made. In that regard, we are doing better in Iraq. However, the main problem with information dominance in an insurgency environment is that the most critical information cannot be gained with sensors. It requires people interfacing with the local population which requires language and culture skills we don’t have enough of.
So, in the case of, say, China, information dominance is very useful. In Iraq, it still has some utility, but has obvious limitations.
3:11 pm
[...] I’ve said it before. The UN is not a serious place. It is a place of make believe, a gigantic fraud upon the human race. It’s charter is honored in the breach. Its ideals promoted as a cynical flim flam used by thugs and radicals to advance agendas that are the antithesis of the spirit that animated the post-war west to create it in the first place. It is a place where deadly serious matters go to be buried by little men with small minds and gigantic egos. And unless it is reformed drastically, it may prove to be the death of us all. [...]
5:15 pm
The UN is a big money pit run by a mob of criminals.
Let’s take that money and build a wall on our southern border.