The Associated Press reported over the weekend that the United Nations Security Council had expressed its "grave concern" over reports alleging that weapons were being smuggled into Lebanon. Of course, the AP article captures in a nutshell the very essence of what is wrong with the U.N. It seems that the best the Security Council can do when faced with a real security issue is to express its "grave concern."
Now, it's no secret that weapons have been smuggled into Lebanon for decades. Nor is it a secret that Iran and Syria have been, and continue to be, the primary culprits. And despite the fact that these latest reports merely reinforce once again what has long been known to be a significant contributing factor to Lebanon's troubles, the Security Council couldn't manage to come together to issue a demand to Syria and Iran to stop their repeated violations of U.N. resolutions designed to prevent the smuggling of arms into Lebanon.
In keeping with the long-held U.N. tradition of avoiding confrontation on serious issues, the Security Council merely reminded both regional and international nations that they had an obligation to honor the U.N. arms embargo and issued a statement saying that recent claims by Hezbollah about the terrorist group's ability to attack Israel were cause for "deep concern."
According to the AP article, it was necessary for the Security Council to "water down" its response to the reports in order to win support from Qatar. Once again we are reminded that consensus takes priority over substance at Turtle Bay. And, while I've asked this question before, I feel compelled to ask it again: why are we still participating in this charade? Why do we still feel the need to work through the United Nations when it comes to important security issues?
The U.N. is a bloated, inefficient, disorganized bureaucracy that consistently fails to seriously address the important security issues facing the world today. At the U.N., getting along is more important than getting a point across. That is why Iran continues to defy the international community with its pursuit of nuclear technology, North Korea continues to play diplomatic games in exchange for regime-supporting concessions from the West, and Lebanon continues to be used as a proxy battleground by its Syrian and Iranian masters.
The United Nations can do some good in the world, particularly with regard to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. But time and again the U.N. fails when it comes to the really important security issues of the day. Each time a statement of "grave concern" or "deep concern" prevails over meaningful action, the U.N. moves farther along the road to realizing President Bush's warning of impending irrelevance.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
The point about the UN is that nothing of substance can ever be accomplished because all nations will sacrifice the general interest for their own national interests. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and I certainly don't think it will ever change. My problem is the continuation of the charade that the UN is actually capable of doing anything. Why put an interim force in Lebanon, with weapons, if the troops under UN command are going to continually stand by and watch the rearming of Hezbollah?
Hell, we've known for decades that Syria and Iran arm Hezbollah. Do we need a UN force and the costs associated with that force to tell us that? And what about Iran? Russian and Chinese business interests take priority over possession of nuclear weapons by a radical clerical regime with a lunatic for a president.
Bush merely pointed out the obvious: the UN is a feel-good organization that lacks the will and the capability to accomplish anything meaningful.
Have they done some terrible things? Of course. Did Israel bomb the UN outpost at Kana during the first Lebanon invasion and bomb another UN facility in the most recent invasion, after repeated cries to stand down from the UN personnel inside these outposts? Did Israel kill thousands of civilians and rain down US-made cluster bombs all over Lebanon, leaving bomblets that litter the country to this day as unexploded land mines? Has Israel killed thousands of civilian Palestinians (many of them women and children) and bulldozed tens of thousands of their homes in the West Bank and Gaza? Does the Israeli army repeatedly violate the rights of Palestinians, blocking their movement with walls around their lands? And did Israel bulldoze down an American peace activist, Rachel Corey, with an American made Caterpillar in 2003 simply because she was trying to block the destruction of innocent Palestinian homes? Google it and get another side of this story.
Do I believe in to the victor go the spoils? No, and neither does the entire international community as UN Res.242 upholds the inadmissibility of territories acquired by war. Israel itself acknowledges that the lands acquired in 1967 do not belong to them. It says it wants to return them in exchange for peace, but it refuses to work with it's perceived enemies (Hamas was democratically elected into power in Jan. '06 by the Palestinian people and the right-wing Israeli government has rained down hellfire on them ever since) and works to undermine them by setting up rival factions as it did against Arafat.
I suggest you look up the Israeli Democratic peace movement that is growing more and more vocal about its government's use of force. It far exceeds the strength of the peace movement in our country. The opinion polls of Israelis show that they hold their government in lower esteem than even we do now of Bush and Congress. This speaks volumes, but of course it will never be told on Fox News.
Regarding Iran, the neo-conservative agenda is to remake the Middle East, westernize it and sell off the oil rights to international corporations. Condoleezza Rice, whose name was christened on a Chevron oil tanker spoke of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Iran has reason to be wary of US intervention after our long backing of the brutal repressive Shah with his secret police that "disappeared" thousands. Ahmadinejad has backpeddled some from his blustering windbag statements about the illegitimacy of Israel. He plays second fiddle to clerics - holymen, not wildeyed terrorists - who have little use for a nuclear war. As long as Iran wants to hold on to their control of their considerable natural resources, they will be seen as a threat to the neo-conservative worldview.
Now consider the scenario that has been talked about of Bush and Cheney launching an air war on Iran, destabilizing the entire region. National security and homeland security presidential directive gives Bush power over all facets of government in an emergency. It is not unlikely the constitution will be suspended—the laws to round up hundreds of thousands of so-called terrorists and enemy combatants are already on the books.* Bush/Cheney could stay in power until the Middle East looks the way they want it to look. Given the neo-con platform that they stand on is this scenario so far-fetched?
*from John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire
I also find your statement ("To say that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups bent on the destruction of Israel is just parroting Western propaganda) intriguing to say the least. Are you kidding me? These are two groups that regularly conduct terrorist attacks against Israel and who call for the destruction of Israel in their charters.
The educational, medicine and social welfare services you speak of are designed to win the support of the population, which these groups do effectively. But to paint them as do-good organizations and to exclude their terrorist actions against Israel is biased at best.
Two other notes: the Israelis have been forced to hold on to seized territory in order to try to minimize attacks against Israel by providing a buffer. Every time "land for peace" is tried, it fails. Israel inevitably finds itself subject to rocket and suicide bomber attacks originating from the areas they withdrew from. Second, the Israeli people hold the Olmert government in low esteem because they failed miserably in their prosecution of last summer's war. The people were promised that Olmert would destroy Hezbollah as a fighting force and that the kidnapped Israeli soldiers would be returned. Neither happened and the defense establishment is paying the price right alongside Olmert and crew.
Oh really?
U.S., UK present resolution to boost U.N. Iraq role
By Patrick Worsnip
Reuters
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; 5:58 PM
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain introduced on Tuesday a resolution charging the United Nations with trying to bring together Iraq's embattled factions as the two Western powers contemplate ultimately leaving.
The resolution, expected to be approved on Thursday by the 15-nation Security Council, would upgrade the mandate of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, or UNAMI, which would also include promoting dialogue between Iraq and its neighbors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701402.html
Besides, what does "promoting dialogue" mean? The problem is one of enforcement and actual implementation of resolutions.
My point is, if Dubya is so disdainful of the useless UN, then why is he asking them to help bail his butt out of Eye Rack so he can "disengage" from his folly and salvage some tiny bit of a legacy?
Your posts are perfect examples of how the Right explains away everything about this administration. Words and actions literally have no meaning unless otherwise defined by apologists for Dubya. It's amazing.
If Bush says one thing, he doesn't really mean it because he is doing the exact opposite... but yet he does really mean what he says because his actions are merely "expected" of him and, therefore, not an indication of what he means.
It's a neat tactic. You literally cannot be held accountable for anything you say or do. It seems to suit Dubya quite well actually. Unfortunately for him, a majority of Americans have caught onto his act.
It won't be long now... irrelevance awaits atop the ash heap of history. And that cannot be explained away.
You still haven't addressed my original point... that being the useless, pathetic UN now being enlisted by Dubya to help clean up the disaster that is Iraq.
As for Iraq, it's Dubya's war all the way. He determined it to be the OK Corral in the so-called "war on terror" and he did what he had to do to justify it to congress. He's the Commander-in-Chief. He has full and total responsibility from start to finish.
Any suggestion otherwise is to cut and run from his responsibility and pass the buck. Post 9/11, Bush determined this is where we make a stand. Like it or not, history will judge him accordingly.
As for Iraq, the current congress could end the war if it really wanted to. I'm sick and tired of Pelosi and Reid appearing on my TV saying they are powerless because the President won't end the war. Hogwash. Congress holds the power of the purse. It really is as simple as not funding the war or providing only enough funds for withdrawal and specifying that the funds can only be used to redeploy U.S. forces. Each of those actions is within the constitutional authority of the Congress. Of course, that would mean that Pelosi, Reid, and every other member of Congress who claims they want the war to end would actually have to back up their statements and stand on what they say they believe in instead of playing for political cover.
The sad reality is that the Democratic Party needs the status quo to continue through the '08 election cycle. If the surge succeeds, they look like idiots because they declared it a failure even before all forces were in place. If they cut off the money and the entire region goes to hell, they suffer the blame. That is why they are sticking to rhetoric and not taking any real action.
For Democrats to say the war is wrong but then claim only the President can end it is factually inaccurate and disingenuous. What I'm sick and tired of is the leadership of the congress acting like hypocrites. If they stood on what they say their beliefs are I would have much more respect for them instead of considering them spineless cowards who are more concerned about their political futures than what they profess to be in the best interest of the country.
And your attempts to place all responsibilty for the war with the President are ridiculous as well. Congress authorized it, funded it, continues to fund it, and has the power to end it. Checks and balances my friend, checks and balances. There is plenty of blame to go around.
By the way, I don't think Hillary can win if she gets the nomination. Just food for thought.
It's interesting how you note that Dubya is going to the UN on Iraq out of political expediency, and that's ok. And the dems in congress not opting to de-fund the war is an act of political expediency, and that's somehow not standing on principle. You can't have it both ways.
As for Iraq, it is the defining political event of our times. Any candidate who stands before the country in '08 and declares Iraq is the central front on the "war on terror" and that we will be there until we "win" will be slaughtered at the polls. I don't care who they are running against. The "I'm with Bush" strategy on anything is a political death knell. Just ask John McCain.
I agree with the likely outcomes in '08, but a large part of that is that the general public is woefully uninformed. There is virtually no discussion about what is likely to happen if US forces leave Iraq. And again, I go back to my argument that principle is more important to me than political cover. Republicans who have been saying for four years that the war was critical to our national security and have now changed their tune for election season are spineless cowards. Do they believe Iraq is important or not? The strategic ramifications have not changed, therefore their principled beliefs should not have changed.
As much as I despise McCain, the one thing that I respect in him is that he is willing to throw away any shot at the Presidency and possibly his Senate seat because he is standing by what he truly believes rather than worrying about whether he gets to stay in the congress or gets to occupy the White House. That is character and courage and I have to respect that.
If the UN is an organization that "lacks the will and capacity to do anything meaningful" then Dubya ought to stand on his principles and leave them out of the discussion of the defining event of his presidency and of our times.
Constitutional authority is irrelevant. A principle is a principle. Either you stick to your beliefs or you don't. In actions and in words.
Thus my point remains, Dubya apologists continue to hold him to a different standard and to apply pretzel logic in so doing.
And yes, constitutional authority is relevant unless we are willing to defer to foreign governments for the conduct of our national security and foreign policies. That's a route I'm not willing to take and I prefer a President and congress who will act outside the UN if they believe it to be in our national interest.
There is no pretzel logic here, and I am not an apologist for the President. There is plenty that I disagree with, but I find the words and actions of the Democratic leadership so repulsive that everything else takes a back seat.
You keep proving my point regarding Dubya's "principles" and the UN... but anyway, you're right, it's a pointless exercise to continue the discussion.
As far as revulsion, I feel just a strongly as you. I have been registered unaffiliated since I was eligible to vote. The very first vote I cast in a presidential election was for Reagan... same for my second. I vote for the Republicans at my local town level because of their position on fiscal responsibilty and controlled commercial growth.
I changed my political affiliation in '06 to Democrat so I could vote in the primaries in my state. I believe I've joined millions of former independants across this country who have been so angered and repulsed by this absolutely despicable administration that we will come out in droves in '08 as a unified voice for change. This has to be the worst bunch of lying, manipulating, crooked lowlifes ever to occupy the White House. They've set this country on the path to ruination on every level domestic and international.
I predict the Republican party will be paying for the sins of Bush/Cheney for many years to come.
Take care and, as always, thanks for the discussion.
For six years they had total control of the government, and this is the best they could muster? I'll take my chances elsewhere.
Nice "chatting" with you.