Dump the UN? No. Cheat on it.
There comes a time when you either dump a loved one or relegate them to booty-call status. It's when you either know you can find somebody better or would rather have no partner at all. Sometimes it is damn hard to recognize when that time has come. So much has been forgiven... what's forgiving one more thing going to hurt?
A lot.
The UN is not just not helping. It's in the way. Imagine a UN that was a dynamic force for good. This UN:
1. stops genocides rather than ignoring or tacitly encouraging them
2. discourages terrorism rather than parsing it's definition into absurdity
3. promotes individual liberty instead of legitamizing dictators
Now, imagine there simply was no United Nations... Wouldn't the U.S. and other democracies get together to create an organization that would do what our fantasy UN does in the above scenario? Of course.
Why don't they? Well... because the real UN exists.
It is time to take 90% of what we give the UN and use it to create a new League of Democratic Republics. This one will require an invitation from the U.S. We'll call you, don't call us. Once you're in you get equal billing, but the U.S. reserves the right to kick your ass out. This one won't legitamize thugs with guns as legitimate governments. This one won't say targeting a baby carriage is not terrorism if a Jewish baby is in the carriage. This one won't give France veto power. Or Italy for that matter. Or, I don't know, Samoa.
Is it really possible to do such a thing? Why not? If W started it now it could hit the ground running by the end of his second term. Would it be expensive? Well, read this about what the UN is doing about the tsunami crisis.
http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/more-unreality-but-dutch-get-it.html
We're already throwing money down a hole, and the hole only gets deeper the more we throw into it. When something really bad does happen we either fix it ourselves, since the UN is incompetent, or let it happen, since we assumed the UN would fix it until it was too late. So no, in the long term, in fact even in the medium term, it will save us money.
But, more importantly, it will do those things the UN should do, claims to do, is given money to do, but does not do. We should remain a member of the UN, we should give the UN lip service and some funding, but we should not have faith that the UN will ever be other than what it is now- a hindrance.
Update: 1/6/05
Dean's World agrees that the UN is not a positive force. And gives a good reason why people refuse to accept that it is no good.
Whenever I've found myself talking with someone defending the UN, it usually turns out to be an idealized theoretical version
I think that's everyone's experience. You still hear the same arguments being made about Communism. That alone should tell people something. Here's the permalink to Dean's World's post: He has a great quote from Mona Charon and more...
http://deanesmay.com/posts/1105036334.shtml
A lot.
The UN is not just not helping. It's in the way. Imagine a UN that was a dynamic force for good. This UN:
1. stops genocides rather than ignoring or tacitly encouraging them
2. discourages terrorism rather than parsing it's definition into absurdity
3. promotes individual liberty instead of legitamizing dictators
Now, imagine there simply was no United Nations... Wouldn't the U.S. and other democracies get together to create an organization that would do what our fantasy UN does in the above scenario? Of course.
Why don't they? Well... because the real UN exists.
It is time to take 90% of what we give the UN and use it to create a new League of Democratic Republics. This one will require an invitation from the U.S. We'll call you, don't call us. Once you're in you get equal billing, but the U.S. reserves the right to kick your ass out. This one won't legitamize thugs with guns as legitimate governments. This one won't say targeting a baby carriage is not terrorism if a Jewish baby is in the carriage. This one won't give France veto power. Or Italy for that matter. Or, I don't know, Samoa.
Is it really possible to do such a thing? Why not? If W started it now it could hit the ground running by the end of his second term. Would it be expensive? Well, read this about what the UN is doing about the tsunami crisis.
http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/more-unreality-but-dutch-get-it.html
We're already throwing money down a hole, and the hole only gets deeper the more we throw into it. When something really bad does happen we either fix it ourselves, since the UN is incompetent, or let it happen, since we assumed the UN would fix it until it was too late. So no, in the long term, in fact even in the medium term, it will save us money.
But, more importantly, it will do those things the UN should do, claims to do, is given money to do, but does not do. We should remain a member of the UN, we should give the UN lip service and some funding, but we should not have faith that the UN will ever be other than what it is now- a hindrance.
Update: 1/6/05
Dean's World agrees that the UN is not a positive force. And gives a good reason why people refuse to accept that it is no good.
Whenever I've found myself talking with someone defending the UN, it usually turns out to be an idealized theoretical version
I think that's everyone's experience. You still hear the same arguments being made about Communism. That alone should tell people something. Here's the permalink to Dean's World's post: He has a great quote from Mona Charon and more...
http://deanesmay.com/posts/1105036334.shtml
posted by Harkonnendog @ 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home