Enough is enough...
I'm with Anne Bayefsky on this one: "Enough of the U.N.!" (photoshop courtesy of Sanctuary)
The U.N. is no longer useful for anything other than aid delivery... and even then?
... Why have our best efforts to enlist the U.N. in the battle against intolerance and extremism failed? Who are these opponents, wrapped in the U.N. flag, who inculcate the view that American unilateralism and non-cooperation is the root cause of the world's ills?(This is drawn from Ms. Bayefsky's remarks yesterday at a Hudson Institute conference. Ms. Bayefsky is founder of EYEontheUN.org.)
Opponents of such reform include U.N. staffers like the secretary-general and his deputy, who claim they are hapless functionaries operating at the mercy of member states — notwithstanding self-motivated trips to Iran, handshakes with Hezbollah, "doing business" with Saddam Hussein, and blaming middle American ignorance for the credibility gap. They are the 45 "Not Free" nations — to use Freedom House labels — who pass judgment on others in the General Assembly. These are the state sponsors of terrorism. The ones who don't let women vote or drive, or who kill them in the name of "honor." The ones who raise their children to die while murdering as many others of a different faith as possible. The ones who shoot mothers and babies from behind. The ones who claim that authoring a cartoon, a movie, or a book can justify a death sentence.
They are the 45 "Not Free" nations...
who pass judgment on others
in the General Assembly. These are
the state sponsors of terrorism.
They are also the 58 "Partly-Free" countries. Some of these are cronies, others are just cowards. Some are like-minded with their more notorious neighbors, others are very dependent.
Together, these nations represent the majority of the 132 developing states and the majority of 192 U.N. members. They are unified not by a desire to democratize, or even to develop, since many are quite content with kingdoms and with servitude in their own backyards. They are a team because they are adroit at U.N. politics, and they have learned that the cartel is good for business. This holds true particularly for the largest single bloc amongst them — the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference.
They are unified not by a desire to democratize...
They are a team because they
are adroit at U.N. politics,
and they have learned that
the cartel is good for business.
The one loose-knit collective that has miserably failed at coordination within U.N. is the Community of Democracies — the pretense of a democratic caucus that counts Nepal, Qatar, and Russia among its members.
The remaining 89 "Free" countries are not only outnumbered at the UN, they are pitted against each other. The plethora of non-democratic regimes in the U.N. framework creates an incentive for a second-string player like France to take on the role of the power-broker and middleman. The possibility of using their influence with dictatorships to offset American power is too tempting for many EU nations. The halfway point between America and the state sponsors of terrorism, however, is not where any democracy ought to be. The U.N. system, though, does not merely divide and conquers democracies — it makes the loser pay for the experience. Just eight developed democracies contribute three-quarters of the entire U.N. regular budget.
The plethora of non-democratic regimes
in the U.N. framework creates an incentive
for a second-string player like France
to take on the role of
the power-broker and middleman.
There is an alternative, an antidote to the self-doubt and moral relativism planted in our midst by Turtle Bay. Senator Frist calls it a "council of democracies outside of the U.N. system … [that would] truly monitor, examine and expose human rights abuses around the globe." Such a gathering is an idea whose time has come: the United Democratic Nations — an international organization of democracies, by democracies, and for democracies. It is time to say enough.
What do I know... but I couldn't agree more.
-Home-