Recently, the "United Nations" released a report saying that the international community was not doing enough to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. So what did the U.N. do? Well, of course, it dissolved his commission and fired Mr Chandler.
But the Democrats tell us that the U.N. should be the linch-pin of American security, and the Democrats are honourable men...
The article makes it clear that Chandler was making a habit of pissing down the leg of US allies like Italy and effective neutrals like Switzerland, and that the US contingent of the UN was instrumental in getting Chandler shitcanned. Now, you can agree with Chandler that the behavior of these minor UN members is lacking, but you ought to make clear that it wasn't a set of faceless UN 'crats who are responsible, but rather American diplomats and administration boffins in consultation with the UN 'crats.
Multilateralism at work, indeed.
U.S. opinion on the committee appears to be divided. Some really liked it. Others seemed to feel inconvenienced by it. Let's look at why that might be so.
The problem I saw with this situation - and I believe reading the Washington Post article supports this view - is that it's easy for inconvenienced states at the U.N. to simply shoot the messenger and ensure that inconvenient messages are never delivered at all.
If there are enough complaints, therefore, even the USA may be faced with the choice of abandoning ANY U.N. commission in this area, or trying to lead the creation a reconstructed version that won't annoy so many countries by releasing hard-hitting reports. THAT is what weasel words like "subject to closer Security Council coordination and oversight" really mean, after all.
Welcome to the dark side of "diplomatic solutions," and an illustration of why that term is such an oxymoron much of the time.
In a democratic, adversarial system, there are mechanisms to keep issues like this alive. There is nothing comparable in the U.N., hence article paragraphs like this:
"The dispute underscores the challenge of managing an international counterterrorism operation through an organization whose 191 members are frequently criticized for failing to cooperate."
Duuuuuh. Maybe this has something to do with being an organization that lets Syria chair the Security Council, lets Libya lead the human rights group, and gives Iran positions on bodies dealing with weapons of mass destruction.
Which is why trusting the security of one's fellow citizens to such an organization, who has already given us Srebrenica, Rwanda, and so many other disasters precisely BECAUSE it suppresses incovenient views, seeks universal agreement rather than clarity, has influential, terror-supporting tyrannies in key positions, and takes action only under the most unusual conditions, is worse than foolish.
"It also reflects growing frustration among members that sanctions have done little to interrupt the flow of money and arms to al Qaeda."
Perhaps because much of that comes from within countries who are not inclined to cooperate fully - if at all. But then, stating such inconvenient truths tosses the issue firmly into the realm of forceful state to state politics and warfare, rather than the misnamed fiction of "international law."
Joe, if u r really so contemptious of the UN, can u gives some useful alternatives rather than reciting rigid Reaganite rhetorics against the UN? Hope its not some indiscriminate wars based on phony intelligence.
Well the problem is that we can't rely on the UN for our security and that we can't rely on Bush43's strategy for our security. Buried in his budget is more penny pinching when it comes to homeland defense. All rhetoric and picking on easy targets. So it's the Hobbes' choice for Americans, and between a President who may go too far and Democrats who may not go far enough they'll probably pick "Collateral Damage" George. The only chance to beat GW in Nov'04 is to articulate a credible alterantive strategy on the WoT that doesn't involve invading countries that don't have WMD and failing to invade ones that do.
If we give credit to ole GW for staring down Libya, then we have to also lay at his door stiffening Korea's and Iran's spine on proliferation. The only chance a reasonable person's got is to find a different way to be just as tough or tougher.
Oldman, that would make for an interesting debate. And thanks to your cooperation, I'm about to point my readers in a direction that might get that started.
At least it's what I'd consider to be an adult response from the other side, and that's always worth celebrating.