November 6, 2005

IF IT ISN'T HELPING CHANGE REGIMES IT ISN'T WORTH PRESERVING:

It works well. Tweak it.: Right-wing critics want to use reform as a club to beat the independence out of the world body. (Stanley Meisler, 11/06/05, LA Times)

AMERICAN POLITICIANS have urged U.N. reform for decades. Lately, the cries have become so loud and incessant that it is hard to imagine what will satisfy the critics. Abolish the veto for all nations save the United States and elect John Bolton as secretary-general?

Strange as it seems, even those steps might not be enough — not for critics whose demands for reform mask a deeper goal. They will not be satisfied unless the U.N. submits to the will of the United States. [...]

The real failure of the U.N., in the eyes of its critics, has nothing to do with reform. Right-wing ideologues despise the U.N. as a threat to American sovereignty. Annan enraged the White House by daring to oppose the invasion of Iraq. Reform is not really on the minds of many reform mongers. No amount of U.N. reform will satisfy them.


It's actually not much of a threat to our sovereignty--the problem is that for it to be worth our while it needs to help us threaten the sovereignty of nations that don't conform to liberal democratic standards.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 6, 2005 11:11 PM
Comments

Leave us not forget the UN's unbroken 50 year record of anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 7, 2005 2:10 AM

The problem is that we donate so much money to a worthless organization.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2005 3:38 AM

Nostalgia for outdated European concepts such as "Sovereignty" needs to be understood as the obsolete language is being misused to describe newer erealities.

We should step back and look at the situation from a different perspective. What would the hypothetical disinterested observer say about the concept of "sovereignty" in the contemportary world?

The first thing our man from Mars would want to know about is power and the capability to project it. The "sovereignity" of Afghanistan does not mean the same thing as the "sovereignty" of the United States. Pretending that the word means the same thing in both applications is decidedly unhelpful.

All we need do to understand the meaning of "sovereignty" and the role of the UN is to examine the case of Iraq. Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 7, 2005 6:32 AM

When do we get to the part in which it "works well"?

Posted by: David Cohen at November 7, 2005 8:18 AM

When we give it even more money, David.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 7, 2005 8:49 AM

..'No amount of U.N. reform will satisfy them.'

correct!

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at November 7, 2005 9:54 AM
« JUST GETTING WARMED UP: | Main | DOESN'T ROBERT BYRD'S POCKET CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT THIS? »