georgeob1 wrote:BTW, I doubt that France obtained UN approval for its unilateral intervention in the Ivory Coast to protect French commercial interests. There wasn't even the pretense that France was acting for the benefit of the Ivorians.
UN Resolution 1572, which was adopted unanimously in the Security Council , condemned the Ivorian air strikes and fully supported the retaliatory actions of French forces.
Then the UN is worse even than I suspected.
georgeob1 wrote:Then the UN is worse even than I suspected.
"Unanimously" surely indicates that the USA agreed as well.
So I suspect that in your opinion the USA is ...
I don't think people here care very much one way or the other. I suspect the government's view is to let this go as long as it doesn't cause us any direct trouble. People here are giving up on both Europe and the UN. One sees more of this every day.
This could have long-term bad consequences for everyone.
Nice explanation.
Though it doesn't refer at all to your statement that with the unanimously adoprtion of Res 1572 the UN is worse than you thought and my interjection that the USA were part of this.
I don't think for a minute that France had any interest other than protecting their commercial interests in their former colony. Moreover the actions of the French force show clearly that political stabilization was not their purpose. Whether or not one believes we are doing well in Iraq, it is beyond doubt that our motives are better than those of France. It is this sort of thing - the hypocricy of it - that seriously turns Americans away from both Europe and the UN. Our expectations of both are declining very quickly - one sees gathering evidence of this almost daily. Not good for anyone. Europe should reflect on the long-term consequences of its foolish envy and complacency.
It's no longer just folks like me here who are fed up with Europe - even dummies are beginning to see the light. If this continues Democrats can't be far behind.
georgeob1 wrote:Whether or not one believes we are doing well in Iraq, it is beyond doubt that our motives are better than those of France.
I'd wager that it is only beyond doubt to Americans. I'm not making excuses for France as I find all forms of subtle colonialism repulsive. I just think we've mastered the art of the un-colony colony, and that hypocrisy isn't limited to foreign governments.
It is beyond doubt only to the extent that I have no doubt that American actions in Iraq were NOT better motivated than French actions in the Ivory Coast.
Giving up on Europe? What on earth are you talking about? Giving up on their slavishly following US orders? If so, good.
The way people look at the UN is very bizarre to me. Whatever decisions it does or doesn't make is a direct result of the member countries. Mr Annan doesn't just decide what he wants to personally do about a given situation in the morning and advise the rest of the world after breakfast. He acts at the direction of the member countries - so it is member countries that are responsible for its failings and achievements - USA, France, Australia, China, Russia...... Rwanda was a perfect example. Everyone agreed that UN intervention was required, they even agreed on the scale of UN personnel that would be required. But then countries (those of the EU and USA included) were not prepared to commit the adequate $$ and human resources to do the job. Meanwhile tens of thousands were slaughtered. Then everyone conveniently blames the UN so that they don't have to look too closely at their own failings (Madeleine Albright admits this and was way closer to the situation that any of us here).
East Timor worked because the resources were made available to get the job done. Same in Bougainvillea. Sudan looks like a repeat of Rwanda and in the case of Zimbabwe, other African countries are mostly the ones putting the stumbling blocks in place.
Americans just love blaming the EU and Europeans just love blaming the USA. I think it would be a whole lot better if people looked a little more closely and critically at their own government's role and gave up the illusion that ANY government does ANYTHING that is not in its own self-interest. Democratic ones are elected to do just that. Americans that I live and work with don't really believe that their government is in Iraq to benefit Iraq. They do believe they're there to ensure American interests are not hurt (whether the threat is to commercial interests or from terrorism). If the people of Iraq actually perceive a benefit, it's an added bonus. Ditto for France's role in Ivory Coast. Doesn't make either one more moral or ethical.
And georgeob 1, you're right there are lots of other bodes that are involved in conflict resolution. So they should be as it often makes more sense (ie NATO's role in the Balkans). Just because these regional organizations can be more successful in a given situation doesn't necessarily mean that the UN has failed. For any number of cultural or geopolitical reasons these are often the more appropriate forums to use.
The USA and the EU scapegoat each other just like Democrats and Republicans... but at base it's simply insiders misappropriating and exploiting positions of power to secure and advance their own personal interests and agendas.
Joe Sixpack and Jean de la Vin just get stuck paying for it all.
"Divide and Conquer!"
Walter, I'm sure there are also German, French, British, and American bugs there, along with those from Russia and China, and others as well. We tend to rely more on remote interception and cryptology, but we do bugs too when there is a need. (I'll bet the Japanese have the best bugs of all).
When the Chinese Plane Bugging story broke some UN diplomat said that it was an insult not to be bugged by the US when working in the UN.
[nota real quote]
"Anyone who's anyone gets bugged!"
...sounds like applause for a culture of corruption?
west coaster wrote:The way people look at the UN is very bizarre to me. Whatever decisions it does or doesn't make is a direct result of the member countries. Mr Annan doesn't just decide what he wants to personally do about a given situation in the morning and advise the rest of the world after breakfast. He acts at the direction of the member countries - so it is member countries that are responsible for its failings and achievements - USA, France, Australia, China, Russia...... Rwanda was a perfect example. Everyone agreed that UN intervention was required, they even agreed on the scale of UN personnel that would be required. But then countries (those of the EU and USA included) were not prepared to commit the adequate $$ and human resources to do the job. Meanwhile tens of thousands were slaughtered. Then everyone conveniently blames the UN so that they don't have to look too closely at their own failings (Madeleine Albright admits this and was way closer to the situation that any of us here).
Good summary.
Welcome to A2K, glad you're here.
Some inaccuracies in the remarks above about the UN. There was a UN force in Rwanda before the massacres broke out. The general in charge (a Canadian I believe) even sent back warnings about what be believed was unfolding. Sadly no action was taken to prevent or stem the slaughter that followed. This was, in part a result of the blindness and ineptitude of some UN staff.
I do agree that ultimately it is the members of the UN who control it and who must bear the blame for its failings. At best the UN represents the average of the political and ethical development of its member governments. Unfortunately that average is fairly low. Though the United States is usually faulted for causing such things, through either inaction or bad action, this time the fault lies with Rwanda itself, the Neighboring African states, and the former European colonial powers (Belgium and Britain) -- the Hutus were French-speaking; the Tutsis English, their rivalries and social discontents go back to competing forces during the colonial era.
I believe to a large degree American expressions of frustration with the UN refer primarily to (1) the growing ineptitude and corruption of its bureaucratic organs; (2) the failure of its member states to act responsibly to real issues instead of the continuous and vacuous exortations about US/ Israeli imperialism and the like that so dominate their energies; and (3) the hypocricy of states like Zimbabwe, Cuba, and many other two-bit totalitarian dictatorships that have an equal vote in the circus in the General Assembly.
I believe we may well be better off just dumping the UN and starting over later. It is not a fit nucleus for the development of a world government. Increasingly serious issues are being dealt with by various regional organizations of countries. Let's end the comedy now and start over later.. This time we could take a leaf from the book of the European Union and establish some political and economic qualifications for voting membership in the successor organization
Yes, there were UN staff in Rwanda. I don't know enough to be able to comment on the quality of their reporting back to headquarters - or indeed the response to any reporting from headquarters. Perhaps it was inaccurate or incomplete or perhaps they were incompetant. But that doesn't let individual countries off the hook.
No government relies on UN workers to get information on what is happening in a countries. They have their own embassies and intellegence services for that. A great deal of the information that comes to the table at any UN meeting, be it the General Assembly or the Security Council, is that which member Governments provide and share. Of course the UN is collecting and providing information as well (but certainly not exclusively).
And on many of the really big decisions that are made in the UN happen in the Security Council where there is definately not equality amongst all countries. This is a big reason behind attempts to reform the UN - but I don't see the five countries with veto rights relinquishing this power or diluting it by widening the comfy inner circle. There might be good arguments for change, but those with the power will continue to protect their own interests. My understanding (happy to be corrected) of a vote in the General Assembly is that a simple majority (or two thirds?) is required, not an absolute majority, so one country does not have the ability to block consensus - as they do in the secrurity council.
west coaster, (from New York yet - do you mean west side?) I generally agree with your observations. My recollection is that there was great unwillingness within the Security Council to act in the matter of Rwanda, despite the fact that there was already a small Un force already there. It may well be that the USA was among the unwilling. This illustrates an interesting feature of the UN. In short term action it can never be better than the best of its active supporters: in its long-term activities commissions, and councils it is only rarely better than the worst of its members - overall not muvh of a standard.
I believe we should shut the UN institution down and start over with a new one, but this time with political and economic minimum standards for membership. This is an idea that the EU has put to good use and it works..
Heaven forfend that politics intrudes upon the sanctity of the mothereffin United Nations.
How dare we (America) attempt to influence the tenure of a UN Technocrat who attempted to influence our presidential election?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to defend the UN or imply that it is a wonderfully functional organisation. Nor do I for a minute believe fault lies exclusively at the feet of Americans. My point is really that in determining how the UN might be improved, it would be useful to do so in the context of member country responsibilities and motivations. Too many people see the UN in a context seperate from governments. Whilst the EU is an interesting model, the reasons that it works (mostly) and the way it reaches agreements is not necessarily something that would work for the UN. The EU is not there to look after the global good, member countries are motivated mainly by the trade and economic advantage they see in banding together. There is also some sense of cultural or regional identity (whilst recognising huge differences too) in common that is unachievable in a globally multilateral organisation.
BTW georgeob1, I'm west coast Australian! Just happen to be sitting in NYC at present.
Finn d"Abuzz - Mr Bush didn't hesitate for a second in interfereing recently in the Australian election making it VERY clear who he wanted elected. Previously unheard of behaviour, but I guess that's politics! All countries with an interest are constantly influencing the tenure of key UN Technocrats - just not always quite so publically.
