This is classic Paul Reynolds, being all solicitous about the future of Koffi’s family business, the UN. I have read the article reasonably closely. It is dominated by Reynolds’ refrain about a ‘high level panel’ that’s trying to find ways of reforming the UN.
Good show, you may think, except that what Reynolds doesn’t say, which you will only know if you have a suspicious mind and follow the link to a further website, is that the ‘high level panel’ was initiated by, guess who? Annan himself.
What other political organisation would get this sort of free pass from the BBC except the UN (well, excluding perhaps all political parties of the Left in election years)? Reynolds truly is risible in his wordy but slanted journalism. But note also, once again, the close relationship between a Foreign Office supported initiative (you can tell this by the British figures who make up this ‘high level panel’, that Reynolds mentions without critical comment), and a BBC ‘party-line’ position. One aspect of this common approach is the idea that the only good thing about the UK’s support of the Iraq war “adventure” is the moderating influence they can exert on those nasty hawks in Washington. Reynolds describes the ‘great hostility’ of the ‘right wing’.
Huh. As I said before- classic Reynolds.
Has there been a stealth edit?
The phrase currently reads:
“There is currently great hostility to the UN in some American circles.”
Given that pretty much everyone agrees that the UN in its current form is rubbish what’s the view in right wing circles about the best way to ‘police’ international relations?
Abysmal though it is I really can’t see much of an alternative other than some sort of anarchy or US dominance.
Quote:
“There is also a useful definition of terrorism, which is said to be an act “intended to cause death or seriously bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants”.
But not so useful I bet that the BBC STILL won’t use the word.
Rich
Good question, and it could be expanded to ask if the world actually needs to, or should be policed. There is intellectual honesty in taking the view that sovereign states should not be constrained in their actions by other nations so that they are free to act in their own self interest. Likewise, there is intelectual honesty to say that the world needs a restraining/advising forum. As a supposed right winger the actions of the UN nations in the last few years have turned me wholly against the latter view.
There is talk of junking the UN as it is irredeemable, and forming an alternative “Community of Democracies”. This would leave out the ragbag of dictatorships and monarchies that love to criticise the West. They mostly contribute damn all to the UN funding or police strength, just lots of bureaucrats.
Meanwhile the mood to demand Kofi’s resignation is increasing. The report by his “panel” of hack diplomats will probably go – it ducked the key problem that has dogged the N since the start, namely the veto power given to the original 5 nations.
“Abysmal though it is I really can’t see much of an alternative other than some sort of anarchy or US dominance.”
What do you think we’ve got now? When was the last time the UN actually did something *without* US troops? Come to think of it, when was the last time the UN did anything besides conduct ‘conferences’ that are actually thin covers for anti-American, anti-Israel hate fests?
UN troops have just replaced NATO troops in Bosnia. They’re also trying to stop the Rwandan’s kick off with the D. R. Congo. They’re in Haiti trying to stop the general populace from killing each other and doing much the same thing in Sierra Leone and Sudan.
This is quite interesting, even if the figures are a bit out of date:
“The public’s misperception that the US is contributing a large portion of the troops to UN peacekeeping operations helps explain much of the ambivalence about putting US troops under a foreign UN commander in combat situations.”
“Asked how they would feel about the US contributing 4 percent of the troops to UN peacekeeping (the actual amount) only 9 percent said this would be too much.”
http://www.policyattitudes.org/pkoped.html
redken
You mention Bosnia (where UN troops are complicit in mass rapes); Rwanda (the less said about the UN’s role there the better, eh Kofi!); the Dem Rep of Congo (where 150 allegations of rape and forced prostitution at a UN camp are being investigated); Haiti (where the UN troops are worse than useless and sit in bunkers waiting to be sent home); Sierra Leone (where UN troops have been accused of systematic rape) and Sudan (where Kofi has put the fear of Allah into the government by sending a strongly worded letter of concern).
Pete, if you can point to any solid evidence (of misdoings) in any of those cases then I’ll accept your point, but as you can’t, I won’t. Also the allegations in Bosnia centred on K-For troops, i.e. NATO troops not the UN. Most of the allegations involving Moroccan UN soldiers in DRC have already been dismissed as fabrications by local women trying to make a quick buck.
To echo the words of Public Enemy: Don’t believe the hype.
redken
The N is a busted flush. Just look at Sudan. And you surely don’t deny that the UN failed to act in Rwanda. and that it was the US that forced action in Bosnia and Kosovo after the typical UN inaction?
Defenders of the DisUnited Nations decry pre-emptive action in Iraq – but never refer to Kosovo.
Bush referred to the UN as the League of Nations the other day. Good slip – the league was just as impotent, spineless. But maybe not as corrupt – Kofi and his army of bureaucrats win out there.
Kosovo is good case in point, on which I wouldn’t attempt to defend the UN’s inaction. However, I’m not sure which is worse, UN hesitation or the US jumping the gun as they frequently do. For every Kosovo there is a Somalia it seems and the thought of the US as our ‘world police’ fills me with dread.
redken
Wasn’t Somalia endorsed by the UN ?
You had better adjust your mind to the concept of Pax Americana. because that is the way it now looks likely to be. Pax-UN is dead, a total failure.
If you want some restratints on S action, the UN is no longer the way to achieve them or negotiate them. The countries leading the “restraint” in the Security Council have been shown to be up to their necks in the UN Oil scandal. You may not accept that – but the American perception is exactly that. Why should they listen to perfidious France ?
My first instincts as an American is to just build our missile shield, deactivate the Pax Americana and let “global security” fall apart. Why should we sweat and bleed for a “global security system” that no one appreciates and which everybody seems to hate? After a few radioactive craters open up around the world then maybe we can renegotiate our role as “global police” — or not, as the case may be.
While I wholeheartedly sympathize with the sentiments expressed by Susan, I’m afraid allowing the rest of the world to explode may cause a bit of a backdraft over here, thus jeopardizing those of us who actually want to live (reasonably) happily ever after. There must be some nation, ANY nation, willing to safeguard humanity in these extremely crappy times, I wish to heaven more of ’em would take an active interest. Meanwhile, I’ve signed the petition ( US out of UN), and written my Congressman, Hilary Clinton and Chuck Schumer( sadly, my Senators) and the President ( a link at http://www.townhall.com makes it painless) imploring them to remove us and our tax dollars from the UN. I urge my fellow Americans of like mind to do the same and keep the pressure on. There’s a current proposal before the House to cut the funding by 10% and it’s a start, but we can do better!
redken
Allegations and onoing investigations covered here, including the CURRENT investigations into UN troops’ action in the Congo:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41627
The UN’s glorious role in Bosnia can be read about here:
http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html
and here:
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/bosnia/bosrap.html
Rwanda – case proven
Sudan – case being proven
Don’t believe the hype. Indeed.
Susan/Pam
From Jan 2001 to 11 Sept 2001 GWB was criticised for appearing to take the US into its shell. ‘Isolationism’ its called. The left bemoaned the fact that Dubya looked as if he was going to pull the drawbridge up and let the rest of the world get on with it. in the post 9/11 world he’s criticised by the very same faction for trying to be the world’s policeman. Plus ca change and all that; in the eyes of half of the world whatever the US does will be wrong if there’s a Republican int eh White House. These same people wanted the Soviet Union to win the cold war, they wanted Saddam Hussein left alone, they want Islamofascism to win out. The left is not FOR anything, it simply defines itself by being AGAINST the US. Considering the regimes that have been consigned to history because US hardware and resolve you can only conclude these people are mentally ill.
BBC’s World Service did a pretty good job earlier this week of covering theSenate investiagation of the Oil for Food Scandal. They ruined it at the end by suggesting that the US was so biased against the UN that any US investigation was suspect.
Oh whoops. That reply to Susan/Pam is from me.
My, my, the early smell of fear is here. Euroleft and BBC fellow-travellers are almost out of lebensraum. “If the Americans don’t [blah blah] then we’ll…we’ll…we…um…we’ll lapse into odd verb forms and DIALOGUE THEM.”
The UN, last best refuge of ‘utopian’ kleptocrats everywhere, is toast. Cleanest and most entertaining solution is to kick ’em out of NY on 48 hrs notice, dumping all stragglers in Gitmo. Third-world thugs and bourgeois radicals would then rely on French largesse. But Paris would be out, since Gallic parsimony always pops up when it’s time to pay. Perhaps roll ’em all up in that inner circle of hell known as Brussels? Ah, the majesty of it all…EU and UN, together at last.
BTW, what’s wrong w/ allowing the rest of the world to explode all on its own? Is the US my brother’s keeper?
Finally, then, the chance for America haters everywhere to strut their stuff, to give it all over to EUFOR, Jacques and Mr Humphreys.
Let’s call it Peace I
Uncharacteristically cut myself short, never a good idea:
Let’s call it Peace In Our Time.
Is the Left intellectually finished? Following the hysteria from the ‘sinister’ side of the political spectrum (ho ho) you may have thought so. Check this article out for a few good points:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp
Murder of Leeds policeman
First line of leading report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4058795.stm
“A former US marine has been jailed for life for the murder of Pc Ian Broadhurst”
BBC seem very keen to bring up his former membership of US Marines. It has featured in headline of news reports & Ceefax.
But it seems to be an insignificant part of killer’s life. Going to supporting report we get
“Despite briefly joining the Marine Corps he was discharged about a year later.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3700770.stm
Why the emphasis?
‘Why the emphasis?’
Dan. Because it’s true.
He was a former US marine.
Why the conspiracy theory? Why do you think it was mentioned?
164 other websites mention the fact that he was a US marine, according to google news
(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=David+Bieber+us+marine&btnG=Search+News)
Ahhh, but redken, who would you rather have instead as world police?
The Russians? Chinese? Who else has the capacity?
And who’s going to pay for them?
The UN can’t even run Kosovo after 7 years.
“Perhaps roll ’em all up in that inner circle of hell known as Brussels? Ah, the majesty of it all…EU and UN, together at last.”
LOL wally — and if they get too annoying — they’re all in one place. A target-rich environment.
Pete, like you the articles you’ve linked too are high on rhetoric, low on fact. Can you give the names of any UN soldier’s court marshalled/convicted of wrongdoings? The only thing the UN was guilty of in Rwanda is of being a bit crap, which judging by most peoples sentiments here isn’t really a contentious issue. It’s strange that you criticise the BBC’s reporting of the Iraq war and their highlighting possible (and actual) abuses perpetrated by American and British soldiers, yet when it comes to UN you’ve already decided that they’re all guilty before any investigations have even been completed!
The French army has been busy behaeding civilians in the Ivory Coast, in an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation.
There is a country that already has thousands of troops in Sudan (indeed they are very close to Darfur, funnily enough). It’s called China, and it easily has the clout to stop the Darfur genocide.
But strangely China has not stopped the Sudanese government?
Why?
I will tell you why, it’s because China SUPPORTS the Darfur genocide.
There is no other explanation for their stance.
“Ahhh, but redken, who would you rather have instead as world police?”
Hmm…It’s a tough question which is partly why I’m defending the UN because the all the alternatives are pretty crap. I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong with the set-up of the UN (aside from the position of permanent members of the Security council and the number of vetoes they can cast) and hopefully the new reforms which will allow the UN use force and generally exert their power with authority and purpose. However I would subscribe to view that concessions are needed by both the US and the UN to move forward in any meaningful manner. Perhaps the UN could agree to have some sort of independent body to monitor their finances while the US could concede to it mustn’t use its veto with such alarming regularity. Although I doubt either will happen.
(contd:) China’s presence in Sudan has hardly been mentioned by the Beeb, even though it is clearly important, as there is a big fat Chinese oil facility south of Darfur.
I’m in favour of America going isolationist; as America is so “stupid” and “evil”, then I say let’s let the more “civilised” countries pay the financial and human cost. I’m sure they are willing to step up to the plate!
America was always envisioned by it’s founders as an isolationist nation, ergo “No foreign entanglements”.
Zevilyn: I’m not sure China actually supports anything, ever. They’re probably just worried about their oil reserves in Sudan and therefore don’t want to piss of the Sudanese government.
A-ha, you got there first Zevilyn, in which case you’ve answered your own question.
Zevilyn:
If the US is determined to tackle global terrorism then it’ll need the intelligence of its foreign counterparts. Needless to say this would be hard to do with more isolationist stance. Also, as much as the US economy looks like it’s taking an upturn (for now at least) the US relies on foreign imports to such a degree that the US would up the proverbial creek without its markets being kept busy by foreign investment.
There are two probs with the US taking a wholly isolationist stance that I can see.
Firstly, the missile defence system doesn’t work properly, therefore the idea of hiding away safely is a non starter. Secondly the vast trade deficit is largely propped up by the goodwill of Asian creditors, therefore the US’ economic wellbeing is heavily reliant on global factors.
I must comment on the ex-marine story, convicted of killing the British cop. As I viewed the prominence they gave to this man’s former job description, I wondered if the BBC realizes the only audience this story, and it’s angle, will find and preach to is it’s already converted choir. It’s a dream of mine to collar a BBC News division employee someday, so that I might inform him/her how little the average American gives a damn. Most of my compatriots haven’t heard of this particular story, those who have think the guy got exactly what he deserved. Indeed, by our standards, he got off lightly. His offense qualifies as a capital crime here, death penalty eligible, even in my bluer than blue state. If he killed a cop on our side of the “pond”, ex-marine or not, he’d be the proverbial dead man walking. No one would shed a tear. More and more, the BBC appears shrill, hysterical and way, way over the top to me. The home of the biggest drama queens on the planet.
To respond to Michael Gill (belatedly): there was no stealth edit I am aware of (there rarely are in opinion pieces). However, I did remark that Reynolds was ‘wordy’ and the one word quotes I gave were separated by my own words, indicating elision (or so I thought). The truth was that the only thing separating those two ideas in the mind of the reader was Reynolds’ apparently intentional verbosity (which in any case had conspiratorial overtones that merely enhanced the bias)- hence, I abbreviated a little.
There seems to be more than little bit of stealth editing around today, doesn’t there Ed? I’m sure there was article minute ago in which you got Barghouti’s in twist.
…I’m defending the UN because all the alternatives are pretty crap.
Hark! The sound of a leftoid losing his baby blanket.
Hmm, given a choice between syphilis and AIDS, I think I’ll take the syph…
As for the UN, why is something rotten better than nothing at all? IMO, only because the UN is such an emblem of bigoted anti-Americanism that it must not be relinquished lightly or, ideally, ever.
So why would anyone expect the Bush Admin to give a flying ef about the bien-pensants of the EU and the horses they all rode in on? Guess what, they don’t.
And speaking of flies on a turd, what is the Euroleft going to do about it, aside from a hissy fit?
Could be there’s room for a new int’l organization with rigorous membership standards. That would eliminate Old Europe. Aside from Japan and Australia there are no shoo-in candidates, certainly not the UK as is. But you can guarantee a loud knocking on the door.
It’s going to get really cold outside.
I think Bush will have one more try to see if the French want to mend fences. He has had a good visit to Canada – Europe is next to be invited to wake up to realpolitik.
After that, if people don’t wanna play nice, Bush will let the UN atrophy, twist in the wind. And this time he’d have Condi staying in line. It would be like the death of the League of Nations.
Get the Russians in the EU. Polish the nukes a bit and re-establish a balance of power to stop the yanks getting above themselves. That ought to do it.
Anonymous – I hope, before I die, I will learn why the left seems to embrace Islamofacism. The Soviet Union, I get ( ultimate dream state -lack of personal responsibility thus avoiding personal failure, love of big brother’s handouts, suppression of dissenting opinion). Saddam Hussein, I get(the left is utterly devoid of true compassion for their fellow man, always has been), but Islamofacism?? I’m bewildered, do they not realize their god-less heads would be immediately removed as a result of all they hold dear should Islamofacism become the dominant culture? Are they not aware of the contempt they inspire in members of the Al-Qaeda club? Leftists are, at best, (very temporarily) useful idiots to the typical garden variety Islamist. Why the attraction/alignment?
Quite so, Mr Keane, and I believe mes amis the Belgians have a brace of rusty frigates crewed by chocolate-loving gray-haired Poirots w/ waxy moustaches and genuine stripey matelot shirts. Oh, quel terreur!
“That would eliminate Old Europe. Aside from Japan and Australia there are no shoo-in candidates, certainly not the UK as is.”
Like Japan would touch most US foreign policy with a barge-poll…
Hark! A righty spouting utter tripe!
Pam: You know some very strange lefties if they like Saddam and think the Soviet Union was anyone’s idea of a dream state. (Other than the USSR Commie party, obliviously).
redken:
I do wish you’d stop hopping from one position to another. You said that allegations against UN troops in the Congo had been dismissed. When shown that investigations are still ongoing you then say that you want names of those convicted. Then we get this frankly breathtaking assertion:
“The only thing the UN was guilty of in Rwanda is of being a bit crap …”
A bit crap? Allowing 800,000 to be butchered is ‘a bit crap’? You want evidence so try some from the Canadian General (Dallaire) in charge of UN troops in Rwanda at the time:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Heroes/Gen_Romeo_Dallaire.html
Quote: “In an assessment that military experts now accept as realistic, Dallaire argued that with 5,000 well-equipped soldiers and a free hand to fight Hutu power, he could bring the genocide to a rapid halt.
The U.N. turned him down.”
By the way, at the time Kofi Annan was the Head of the UN Peacekeeping Department. He directly shares in the blame for the catastrophic failure of the ‘international community’ in preventing the slaughter of 800,000 people. Each day he is a free citizen, let alone Secretary General of the UN, is an insult to a vast number of murdered souls. The UN is a deeply sick organisation. Cuba and Libya are given prominent roles on the Human Rights Commissions for crying out loud!
You want evidence of how the UN were ‘a bit crap’ in Rwanda? Put ‘Dallaire’ and ‘Rwanda’ into Google, sit back and read.
Pam
The left is stripped bare and is shown to be empty. We have a century of opposition to the US and enlightened western civilisation in general. Support for the Soviets (how many dead?); for China (how many dead); for Cuba, North Korea, the North Vietnamese and countless other odious regimes. How many hundreds of millions have died because of these regimes? Support for Saddam Hussein and now Islamofascism! The left is defined simply by its opposition to the US, to democracy, freedom of the individual and enlightened thinking. As I said above, it is a mental illness.
steve jones “He was a former US marine.
Why the conspiracy theory? Why do you think it was mentioned?”
I thought it odd that 1 years service in the marines nearly 20 years ago should be so prominently featured.
However, steve, thanks to your link I see the reason. It was the headline of the Reuters report that all others have followed –
“Ex-U.S. Marine Gets Life for UK Police Murder”
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6981398
Pete: I haven’t changed my position as I wrote “most of the allegations involving Moroccan UN soldiers in DRC”. The Moroccans were accused of the most serious stuff (rape, child prostitution etc). You still have yet to prove there is any weight to the allegations. BTW, if the UN is so useless why have they been asked to take over from NATO in Bosnia and to help out in Afghanistan and Iraq?
“The left is defined simply by its opposition to the US, to democracy, freedom of the individual and enlightened thinking.”
Only by you, Pete.
I see some people are asking why the left embraces islamic fanatics. Well some do not such as Nick Cohen et al, but the more unhinged fanatical left embrace islamists for one very simple reason…they hate capitalism and western democracy…but are stuck with it because it works for too many people so the only way to bring down a capitalist system is via force…therefore anyone who represents a forceful threat to western democracy and capitalism (as muslim fanatics do) get the support of the left, or rather the far left.