Though I've been on this forum for about 5 years now, there are still some views of right-wing Americans that I cannot get a handle on. One of them is the hatred of the United Nations. And yes, I understand that the Security Council of the UN has not had as many "successes" under its belt as could have been hoped for.
What I don't understand is the direct frothing hatred of the UN.
I am not some strawman "right winger" DD, but I will answer some of your questions.
I was once far more enamored of the UN and the international system than I am now. The cock ups caused by the UN dual-key RoE, a system that rendered UNPROFOR rather powerless in Bosnia, began the end of my respect for the UN collective security capability. The Somalia mess is where some point the finger, but I don't. There were enough errors purely within the US side that I feel the complaints about General Bir (the Turkish 3 star running the UN force) and UN Ops were scapegoats for President Clinton cutting his forces by a third and expecting the same level of mission tempo and success. He wanted something for nothing, which is the same thing the UN bureaucrats want: something for nothing. That is the core bone of contention.
The political theme behind the UN's loss of face in the US began with the post Cold War
peace dividend meme and
expectation among the American polity. Some more broad minded people, who'd been around the world (like me) thought the "peace divident" a farce, but it played in Peoria,
and among liberals who wanted to see reductions in defense spending.
What started the ball rolling was bringing Americans home (we cut 5 divisions out of the Army, cut 3 CVBG's from the Navy, reduced USAF TAC wings to 20) with the intent of reducing our role -- and cost -- of being the world's policeman. The activism of Boutros Boutros Ghali, aided and abetted by both Bush The Elder and Clinton, was a reversal of that expectation, as was the increased op tempo in support of UN and other multinational peace enforcement, and "nation building." Some morons in Europe, and for that matter in Canada, called the reaction to this UN activism "isolationism." Hah, fools don't know the meaning of the word. The US still had bases and forward presence all over the world.
What changed was scale, a matter of degree, not overall posture.
The US has been constructively engaged since 1945 on most of the planet, and that did not change even though the UN is now in ill odor. What has changed is the political ease of expending US blood and treasure to solve
other people's problems. It can still be done, but at a political cost. It took Clinton three years to get the US into Bosnia, in 1995. We just recently (2006) pulled the last of our troops out of Tuzla. That's 11 years of
solving someone else's problem. Check out 1991 to 2003, the number of times a US Marine Amphibious groups deployed to Africa and put people ashore, for NEO, humanitarian assistance, or "presence" during civil strife. You'll run out of fingers, and if you include South Asia and Southest Asia, toes.
The UN
per se isn't the problem.
The internal processes, corruption, duplicity, and outright fraudulent premise of burden sharing are what American Congressional leadership (who control the money) got fed up with while the US was undergoing a significant budgetary belt tightening in the mid 1990's. I will repeat that for emphasis: with US internal deficit reduction being undertaken, the UN was expected to show a similar belt tightening. What Boutros and the bureaucratic club (Kofi is another sucn) wanted to do was expand UN roles and missions on the American dime.
No surprise there, really, no bureaucracy likes to have funds cut. What cost the UN a lot of American support was the whinging maggots of all the countries who did not want to increase their share (everyone but the US)
an expected response, but who wanted a larger role for the UN. Failure to undertake internal UN reform cost more US support.
Each time I see the lie about the US not paying its dues, I note that 25% of the budget is paid for by the US, the share arrangement has not been revisited despite significant changes in global trade balances, and the peacekeeping share (the old 30+ per cent rather than 25% per the standard deduction) without a
quid pro quo for billions spent in support of the UN's collective security aims present a balance sheet that does not withstand scrutiny. This fiscal sleight of hand is what got the US in an uproar. This will continue until it is resolved to Congress' satisfaction.
The American public has spoken to their representatives: no free ride to internationalist elitists. Put your money where you mouth is, challenges the man on the street, and the UN elites answer up with a hand out for more money. So, you get remarks like this.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...7/stun0305.htm
"To say that the United States owes one cent to the United Nations is simply a fantasy held by the internationalists who want more of our money to put in place their programs which at worst actually bring harm to the United States, or, at the very least, run contrary to US policy.
"The Government Accounting Office states that the US paid more than $6.6 billion into various UN fiascoes, like Somalia, where US soldiers died carrying out questionable UN policies; and only $1.8 billion has either been reimbursed or counted towards US dues. If we subtract the $1.3 billion the UN chiefs claim we owe from the more than $4.7 billion still un-reimbursed, that leaves some $3.5 billion, tax dollars taken from hard-working Americans, which the UN still has not repaid.
"We have no contractual or moral obligation to give more money to the bloated UN. And we also simply do not have the cash. Our budget is not anywhere near in balance, and we are discussing making sleight-of-hand changes in the CPI so we can pay out fewer benefits to our veterans and senior citizens, and raise taxes on all Americans.
"The United Nations has evolved into a great anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-free market forum for the disenfranchised socialists of the world. The very last thing we need to do is send one more penny for the UN to use to further lobby against American values, or spend in sending our soldiers into yet another ridiculous UN mission that only cost lives and solve nothing.
"We do not owe them. They owe us."
Note: that speech was Pre Iraq war, and I think Pre 9-11. The sentiment remains, however.
It has been exacerbated by
- The lack of support for Iraq from key members of the security council
- The exposure of the UN Oil for Food fraud uncovered as Iraq fell.
Point 1 was a textbook case of how the UNSC really works, and I don't blame the French and Russians for taking the positions they did. The conflicting agendas of various nations typically renders the UNSC impotent to act, regardless of how strongly worded, "serious consequences" of UNSCR's are. I hold the Bush Administration accountable for not successfully generating support at the UNSC. That was their responsibility. Support there is not something one can take for granted.
Point 2 reinforces Congressman Paul's sentiments, and should be an immense embarassment to anyone associated with the UN. The UN bureaucrats to date have displayed no sense of shame, so the image of a gaggle of freeloaders continues before the US voting public. That image is fodder for whatever political wag wants to play that card for purely internal political moves.
Deal with this simple premise: money talks, and BS walks.
At such time as that matter of burden sharing is resolved, and credit for peacekeeping support and UN operational support is acceptably disposed of, the UN cannot restore its image among the bulk of Americans as an organization worthy of full support. When Syria gets on the Human Rights council, or Iran, the credibility of the UN once again falls due to the cynical hypocrisy displayed in the maneuvering for influence on UN councils. Americans see that, and use such data points to reinforce their bias agianst the UN's legitimacy. Some do.
Which is a damned shame, in my view. I think the UN is performing well beneath its potential due to participants not seeing past their own noses, which the US is as guilty of as any other.
The UN, as a collaborative body, serves as a superb agency for addressing dozens of transnational problems that collective efforts can mitigate or resolve. (Medical in particular.) The self inflicted wound by the UN bureaucratic management, defying its largest donor, could be remedied, but the political will in dozens of capitals is absent. No one wants to pay any more. Who will bell the cat, eh?
The Security Council has the limitations any coalition exhibits thanks to the conflicting aims of its members. As a collective security body,
it is extremely limited in effectiveness by structure, due to
- competing agendas
- the organ's reliance on contributions for effective collective security actions.
The UN is not sovereign. It has no ability to draft, tax, or deploy force to back up its pronouncements. For collective security, it relies on the kindness of (at times) strangers working together. After two generations of footing the bill for global security, US voters said "
no mas." The irony of the immense costs incurred for the Iraq war, validated by the same voters in 2004, is not lost on me, but
it makes political sense: "We'll spend freely of our blood and treasure for our own aims, your aims (whoever the mythical "You" is that is not America) You Need To Pay For."
The League of Nations, version 2, held in its founding the same risks that League of Nations, version 1, held. That it has held together,
and been modestly effective, should be a sign of success and hope for the future. I see the UN being more effective when the decades long debate on burden sharing gets resolved . . . which may never happen.
ETA: Claus, mark you calendar, we agree on this problem.
CFLarsen said:
Could those who believe the UN should be dissolved explain who would do the various programmes under UN?
What will you do to replace the UN Peacekeeping missions?
How would you solve the problems handled by the Security Council?
While I find UN peacekeeping missions hit and miss (Cyprus is another festering sore) they sometimes help. Security council, for all of its shortcomings, is better than NOT having one.
DR
