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.
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.
posted by sadiq at 4/17/2006 10:21:00 PM
7 Comments:
The problem with the UN is that it looks great on paper. The idea of it and its’ purpose is fundamentally good. However the reality of it is that it’s a bunch of politicians from different nations. Politicos with their own agendas, politicos from nations that at times can barely be civil towards each other. You and I know anytime you have politicos in a room nothing is going to be resolved as fast as it should be. Look at how long it took them just to draft a resolution to take a stance on what’s going on in Sudan. The question here is not so much how can the UN be reorganized and restructured (which it really needs ) but how can we the public get them to see that they need to do this, that they are out of step with what’s going on in the world. They need to pick up the pace.
You're absolutely right. They're so all inclusive that they have become a bureaucracy that can't get anything done. sigh....
I don't know what the solution is, but, in the end, it's better to HAVE a UN than NOT!
Adonde esta Sadiq? Esta en la biblioteca Sadiq? No Sadiq no esta en la biblioteca. Esat en el blog Sadiq? No Sadiq no esta en el blog. Adone esta Sadiq? Yo no se adonde esta Sadiq. Hola Sadiq!
okay, mia, i know you're a multilingual american, but i only speak one language fluently. and that's english. the closest i've come to any other language is arabic, and i've been described as having the "skills of a precocious three year old" in that one.
now i'm going to have to take this to work and get some of my amigos to translate this....
Oi! it's school Spanish. If they made you take it in HS it's from a chapter called Juan goes to the library ask one of your kids I'm sure they are familiar with the lesson. All I did was sub Sadiq for Juan.
"Where is Sadiq? Is Sadiq in the library? No Sadiq is not in the library. Is Sadiq on his blog? No Sadiq is not on his blog. Where is Sadiq. I do not know where Sadiq is."
ayna Sadiq? hal Sadiq fil maktaba? la, Sadiq laysa fil maktab. hal Sadiq 'ala bloguhu? la, Sadiq laysa 'ala bloguhu. ayna Sadiq? la 'aruf ayna Sadiq.
Never took Spanish. That's the best I could do.
I've been CRAZY busy lately. I'm studying for my stockbroker's license and my grandmother in law just had a stroke. I'll probably be out of commission for the next few weeks, at least until the end of June or the beginning of July.
Lo ciento, mi amiga.
Sorry to hear about your G-I-L I know how bad that can be my mom had a stroke awhile back. Good luck with your stock broker's license! Talk to you soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home