‘United Nations’ New Arms Watchdog: North Korea’

by Robert Koehler on June 30, 2011

Sometimes, there’s simply nothing to say.

Read it and weep.

Tagged as: Conference on Disarmament

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

1 milton June 30, 2011 at 3:00 pm: And yet some so-called “internationalists” still cling to the now completely discredited belief that the UN has some sort of relevance in today’s world. Where’s John Bolton when you need him?
2 Wedge June 30, 2011 at 3:30 pm: OK, can we finally stop pretending that this organization has any use? Can we turf these sinecured bureaucrats yet?
3 chiamattt June 30, 2011 at 4:01 pm: Like any international organization, the UN has its faults, but to say that it is entirely useless or irrelevant is just ignorant.
4 gbevers June 30, 2011 at 5:47 pm: The UN is entirely useless and irrelevant.
5 hoju_saram June 30, 2011 at 6:17 pm: And yet some so-called “internationalists” still cling to the now completely discredited belief that the UN has some sort of relevance in today’s world. Where’s John Bolton when you need him?

Let’s be fair here. The Conference on Disarmament means nothing – it operates independently of the UN, has 65 members that talk about disarmament, and that each have a turn chairing it. The fact that North Korea is holding the three week rotating presidency of a backwater multilateral body isn’t actually that earth-shatteringly shocking. The Norks are hardly going to accept an invite to a forum where they have to sit quietly and be talked at, are they?

I admit that it looks bad, but it hardly makes the UN irrelevant. To non-Americans, it’s very relevant.

From my point of view, as an Australian, I’m much happier going to war under a UN mandate than a unilateral US one. That’s not to say that I’m anti-American. But I believe in international consensus (however hard to attain), and in sovereignty.

Korea, for example, was a successful police action by the UN. So was INTERFET (Australian context). So is UNIFIL. There are plenty more.

Oh, and John Bolton is an asshole. If you want to piss off your closest allies (including Australia and the UK) by all means, bring him back.
6 hoju_saram June 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm: The UN is entirely useless and irrelevant to Americans

.

Fixed it for you.
7 milton June 30, 2011 at 6:30 pm: Oh, and John Bolton is an asshole.

Yeah, John Bolton is kind of an asshole. Aren’t all toupee wearers?
8 keith June 30, 2011 at 6:35 pm: Whilst the UN does have some serious issues, it is generally a force for good. UNICEF, for example, do some incredible work all around the planet for vulnerable youngsters – in my opinion they’re one of the best places to donate any spare money you may have laying around.

The UN having China as a permanent member on the Security Council is far more outrageous than letting the Norks have a very minor post for a very short time. UN troops have helped out the US many times on missions where more nations were needed and the US couldn’t possibly manage on its own.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment by Hoju Saram. John Bolton is an arsehole of epic proportions.
9 milton June 30, 2011 at 6:39 pm: But I believe in international consensus (however hard to attain), and in sovereignty.

My problem with the notion of international consensus is that the international consensus and the morally correct course of action don’t always align. In cases like this, when the international consensus leads to an inferior outcome, isn’t it better to skip the consensus and act unilaterally? Hypothetically, imagine there’s an ongoing genocide like the Holocaust. If the US (or other country) had decided to intervene to stop the genocide, but the UN failed to sanction that action (say, because Russia and/or China wanted to protect their local business interests), would it be “correct” to stand by and do nothing simple because the major powers couldn’t agree?
10 jefferyhodges June 30, 2011 at 8:04 pm: Gerry (#4), you didn’t say of the UN that “it is entirely useless or irrelevant.”

Close, but no cigar!

Jeffery Hodges

* * *
11 hoju_saram June 30, 2011 at 8:06 pm: My problem with the notion of international consensus is that the international consensus and the morally correct course of action don’t always align. In cases like this, when the international consensus leads to an inferior outcome, isn’t it better to skip the consensus and act unilaterally?

Sure, but who is to decide what the morally correct course of action is?

The GOP had it that the invasion of Iraq was morally justified. The UN disagreed. Who was right?

As far as the Holocaust analogy is concerned, I don’t think the UN is any more likely to fail to take action in humanitarian or security crises than the US is, acting unilaterally. (Example).

Anyway, the US has a veto. If it decides that a UN decision is unconscionable, it can simply veto it or ignore it.

My point is that the only alternative system to the UN is for the rest of the world to STFU and do what America tells them to do. That might seem like a good idea to some Americans (especially to the GOP set), but it’s not a good result for most of the global community.
12 jefferyhodges June 30, 2011 at 8:09 pm: Whom do I call to contact the “global community”?

Jeffery Hodges

* * *
13 hoju_saram June 30, 2011 at 8:13 pm: Here’s a few reasons why the UN is good for Uncle Sam
14 R. Elgin June 30, 2011 at 9:29 pm: It’s Springtime for Hitler and Germany.
15 Charles Tilly June 30, 2011 at 9:31 pm: Here’s a movie you UN-haters might enjoy. I know I probably will but for different reasons (hint: Rachel Weisz).
16 Wedge June 30, 2011 at 10:55 pm: #6: “The UN is entirely useless and irrelevant to Americans”

Truer words were never spoken, which is why the organization needs to be given two weeks to leave the U.S. while Uncle Sam stops providing 25% of its funding. Let the rest of the world do something on their own for a change. Knock yourselves out.

And I hate to break it to you Hoju, but Democrat senators voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution by a vote of 29 to 21. Ooops, doesn’t fit the narrative, does it?
17 Bipolar Mindscrew July 1, 2011 at 1:59 am: Wedge: A simple Wikipedia search will show you that the US contributes 22% – the maximum of any member state… which is calculated according to GDP with a maximum of 22%. That 22% equals a paltry $516 million… add another half-billion per year for UN peacekeepers… and it is quite a large number. Now compare it to the $1 billion per week that the US Army gets to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the US never pays its dues on time. During the entire Bush administration, the US was continuously in arrears… http://globalsolutions.org/united-nations/funding

The UN is about as useful or useless as any elected government body… Some are good, some are bad, politically or morally. Democracy is terrible, but it could be worse.
18 Arghaeri July 1, 2011 at 10:38 am: Unelected body?
19 R. Elgin July 1, 2011 at 11:16 am: . . . The UN having China as a permanent member on the Security Council is far more outrageous than letting the Norks have a very minor post for a very short time.

This is true enough. North Korea attained this UN post with the support of China, Iran, Burma.

I strongly suspect that the next world war will most likely have “made in China” stamped on it.
20 hoju_saram July 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm: #6: “The UN is entirely useless and irrelevant to Americans”

Truer words were never spoken, which is why the organization needs to be given two weeks to leave the U.S. while Uncle Sam stops providing 25% of its funding. Let the rest of the world do something on their own for a change. Knock yourselves out.

Did you read the link I posted, or did you just choose to ignore it? The UN is actually very useful to America – particularly economically. I know it doesn’t fit your furner-hating narrative, but that 25% is an investment with excellent returns.

If you don’t believe me, look up the WMO, ITU, UPU, FAO, WIPU, UNDP, UNCTAD – just for starters. The idea that the US gives handouts to the UN without recompense is just another libertarian/conservative fantasy.

Want to kick the UN out of NY? Go ahead. Want to withdraw your (fair share) of funding? Ok, but be prepared to fork out 10 times the amount of money you do now for things like maritime safety, global telecommunications (for data, shipping, aircraft), weather data, agricultural protection and research, trade and technical standards investments, international postage, intellectual property, global economic (and democratic) reform & privatization efforts that create markets for American goods etc, etc, etc.

As a matter if fact, why stop at withdrawing from the UN? Why not adopt an American Juche philosophy?
21 R. Elgin July 1, 2011 at 3:34 pm: Regarding China being on the Security Council:
GENEVA (Reuters) – The top U.N. human rights official chided China on Thursday for failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on an international warrant for alleged war crimes when he visited Beijing this week.