The FSWE and the UN

I took the Foreign Service Written Exam last Saturday, and on the essay portion was a question on the United Nations, one of my favorite topics. I think I can say that without breaking my confidentiality agreement....

Anyway, I was thinking about the UN today, talking it over with my wife, and I was thinking about the issue we have with Iraq (and now Iran) obtaining nuclear (nukular?) weapons and the almost-failure of the international community to address issues like WMD, ballistic missile testing by North Korea, the black market fire sale on over 100 missing tactical battlefield nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union, and the like. It struck me that the international community, as expressed through the United Nations, is finally drafting a resolution to take a stance on the GENOCIDE in the Sudan and adopt a strong position against the Sudanese government's complicity in the human rights violations of the Janjaweed.

'Bout fuckin' time.

It's been three years since the (former) United States' Secretary of State, the estimable Colin Powell, stood up in the UN and implored the international body politic to act on the slaughter of black farmers by arab herders. And let me say, just for the record, that it's about time. It took the UN three years to act on a BLATANT campaign of GENOCIDE, quite possibly the worst human rights violation IMAGINABLE!

It started me thinking, and I think I understand a fundamental problem with the international community, and with the United Nations. It's set up in a Cold War paradigm, one that was set up to address a set of issues that are no longer dominant in the international community. We no longer have a paradigm of East versus West, Communism versus Democracy, the United States of America versus the Soviet Union. But that is what the United Nations was created to deal with.

The world has changed. And the UN needs to keep pace. It should NOT take three years for the international community to do something about genocide. If that's the case, then the UN does not have the ability to react to threats to the human community in a timely fashion. If that's the case, then there needs to be a mechanism in place that will allow the international community to respond in a matter of days, weeks, or (at the very most) months to credible reports of human rights violations. If that's the case, then something has to change in the international community.

I understand that the Bush administration cooked the books on Iraq. But imagine for a second that they didn't. Imagine that Saddam had a nuclear program that was well developed. Imagine that he was two years away from developing a 50 megaton nuclear bomb, slightly larger than either nuclear weapon used in the history of warfare. Imagine that they had their current delivery technology, and could only use the Scud II to reliably deliver that warhead. To Tel Aviv.

I submit to you that the international community wouldn't do anything about it. It took them three years to try to do anything about GENOCIDE!

THIS IS THE SAME SHIT THAT HITLER WAS GUILTY OF!

Aah, when you rank up there with Hitler, you know you're at the top of the "do not fail to depose" list.

But they haven't done anything about the Sudan in three years, so what makes anyone believe that the UN would do anything effectual about Saddam in three years, even if they got an inkling that they were within two years of maybe building a bomb?

What did they do about A Q Khan? And now NORTH FUCKING KOREA has the bomb and a ballistic missile that was successfully launched over all of Japan and into the Pacific Ocean.

So let's go back to our original scenario. Somebody out there is working on the bomb. They already have a delivery mechanism that threatens a valued ally, coupled with a leader that has threatened to wipe that ally off the face of the map. They may be within two years of having the technology to build that bomb and blow shit up in a way that makes Hiroshima look like amateur night at the Apollo. It'll take the international community three years to draft a resolution, and five years to resolve to send in troops. By that time, our hypothetical nation will already have the bomb. What is the solution? To have NATO send in troops? (no, it'd take a bit too long to be effective.) To allow a nation to go it alone? (no, it'd make them war criminals.) What's left?

A coalition of the willing. And how pathetic is that?

I think that there are four situations that are recognized by the international community, in descending order of legitimacy. First, there's the UN, whose actions are greeted universally (by its member states) as being a legitimate expression of the international community. Then, there are organizations like NATO and the African Union, who are long-standing multi-national communities tasked with the obligation of protecting and defending those in need, and who need a large number of states to agree on the legitimacy on the mission. Third, so called "coalitions of the willing", which could range from our coalition in Iraq to a "coalition" between Russia and The Ukraine in carpet bombing Chechnyan rebels. It's marginally more acceptable than option four. Which is a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation, which has been condemned by the majority of the international community as the equivalent of the "war crime".

So we can't get the UN to respond in the Sudan inside of three years? No real surprise. That's typical of the UN. And it's tough to get NATO to respond, although the AU sent in troops after about a year and a half, even though the collected nations of Africa have less resources to devote to the AU's defense fund than the state of Wyoming collects in income tax on an annual basis. So what's left?

I'm a big fan of the idea of the UN, but NOT of the current structure of the UN. We need to reform the UN, in a BIG way. We need the international community to have an internal organization with the responsibility and power to STOP the Sudan in a matter of months. A panel that can take quick and decisive action against someone like A Q Khan. A group that can deal with a fast paced crisis, and I mean CRISIS, like America dealt with in 1962 when Kennedy (successfully) stopped the Soviet Union from basing something like 17 short and medium range ballistic nuclear weapons in Cuba. Because if the International community can't deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation IMMEDIATELY and DECISIVELY, then someone else has to.

And that's scary.

Let's do what we can to make sure that the UN can do something about genocide, nuclear proliferation, and other internationally recognized unacceptable state actions. Because if the UN can't do anything, which is the ideal paradigm for dealing with international threats, someone will have to step in and administer "vigilate" justice. And, in all honesty, with a defense budget that in the year 2000 was as large as the REST OF THE WORLD'S COMBINED, the United States is the only real option for administering said unilateral sanctions.

And that fucking TERRIFIES me.

Time to piss Mia off....

Mia, who is a most eloquent writer, asked me to give my two cents on the immigration issue. In my ordinary, briefly worded manner, I will respond, and I will respond directly to you, Mia:

I hope that being an illegal immigrant becomes a felony.

Now, before you blow a gasket in that pretty little head of yours, let me tell you why. It's probably not for the reason that you would think. It's not because I have a problem with el Mexicanos, or any hispanics, for that matter. It's because I don't think that it'll stick, and that it would cost the Republicanos the Hispanic vote for the next forty years. Frist is pushing hard for making illegal immigration a felony, and it could kill him, and his entire party, for a generation, in much the same way that Johnson handed the South to the Republicans when he signed the Civil Rights legislation in '66. Lemme 'splain.

I work in the restaurant business, and our dish crew is all Mexicanos. They've been teaching me smatterings of Spanish for the past two years, and I (ironically enough) have been teaching one of them common greetings in Arabic. It's been fun, and they're generally a decent bunch of guys. I could be friends with two of them if it wasn't for the pesky language barrier, but since the extent of our conversation ends up being "que pasa", "como es stas", and slang about delicate parts of the human anatomy, we haven't found many common interests.

I've heard the arguement that illegal immigrants take jobs that legals and citizens wouldn't take, and I disagree with some of it. In the agricultural business, for the most part, I agree. Now, John McCain said that he could offer $50 an hour to go pick veggies in Huma, Arizona, and he doesn't think any American would do it. For $400 a day, I'd do it, and do it without complaining. That's an income equivalent to $100,000 a year for the duration of the growing season, and I can't think of anywhere else I could make that kind of money except Iraq. But it's a moot point, because McCain was speaking hypothetically, and I sure as hell wouldn't do it for the 6-14 dollars an hour that most agri-workers actually make, and that's the reality of the situation. And few Americans would, if any.

I have a friend who is a roofer; it's hard, physical labor, often in crappy weather, and they get paid between 10 and 15 an hour for it. He makes more, because he's a foreman, but his crew makes a decent salary for being low-skilled workers. And he's learning to speak Spanish, because a lot of his crew is comprised of immigrant labor. Most of it illegal.

What do I think about that? To be honest, I don't know. I do not believe in the unregulated flow of either capital OR labor. I think that immigration SHOULD be regulated. I don't believe in quotas from certain countries. I do believe that there should be special categories for political or religious refugees. I do believe that there should be special categories for people who can contribute specific skills and talents to our country, like scientists and engineers. And I do believe that the "huddled masses" should be invited from all over the world, so that America has a wide variety of races, ethnicities, languages, ad infinitum. These are things that I think are good for America. I believe in the "mixing bowl" concept of what the USA should be.

On the other hand, I don't agree with illegal immigration. I think that it's important for countries to control their borders. Can't we have a real guest worker program, designed to keep tabs on those who come into the country for gainful employment in a way that allows them to do jobs that there is a demand for? One that isn't being fulfilled by American labor?

The law of supply and demand vis a vie labor suggests that if there is a large demand and small supply for jobs, that wages will go down, wheras if there is a large demand and small supply for labor, wages will go up. I tend to agree with that. That's bad for my roofer friend. His wages are depressed because of competition. It doesn't have any bearing on wages in agri-business, where Americans won't do the job until wages become cost-prohibitive.

What it comes down to is that I think that guest workers SHOULD be allowed in the country, but only for jobs that Americans (including legal immigrants) either can't or won't do. And real, honest analyses should be done to figure out what and how many of those jobs are available. Right now I think that we're too heavily entrenched in the spin to see the truth on the numbers. But it should be regulated, monitored, "blue-carded", et cetera.

------------------------------------------------

Regarding the illegal immigrant debate and 9-11, I think it's all a political ploy. All of the 9-11 hijackers came here legally, and that didn't stop them from killing. Anyone who uses 9-11 as a justification to crack down on people who swim the Rio Grande are either lying, misinformed, or stupid. There's no two ways about that.

And I hope that Mia doesn't hate me now....