21 April 2005
Changing the UN
The deservedly bruising round of US Senate hearings over Bush's nominee for the US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, does raise some interesting issues for the UN. Bolton is famous for his fierce criticism of the UN, and is remembered for his comment that you could lose the top 10 floors of the UN building and it wouldn't be noticed.
It is a truism that the UN does move ponderously and sometimes not at all, over issues. But for a body which is comprised of 191 nations, all pursuing their own agendas, it's a wonder it actually achieved some of its past accomplishments at all. Having said that, when neo-con reactionaries complain bitterly about the UN, what they really are saying is that they are having a tough time getting their way.
Surely it must occur to even the most dim-witted neo-con, that in anything resembling a democratic organisation, democracy means that people are permitted to hold different views to others. But I guess in a neo-con democracy, liberty and freedom means that you are free to have any view you wish as long as it's identical to mine!
Given that the Bush regime is such a trenchant opponent of multilateral international organisations; notwithstanding the fact that the US was a foundation member of just about all of them, the UN should really reconsider its position.
For all of Bush's criticisms of the UN, he has offered no alternative that other member nations (save for a sycophantic few) will countenance. After all, few countries feel a great need to subordinate their interests to those of a man who, until becoming president, hadn't even ventured outside his own country.
Neo-cons claim that fewer and fewer UN decisions go their way even as the US sporadically pays its UN dues. I wonder if I can use the same logic with the tax man when I file my next return? Levity aside, the UN is faced with a serious issue here. Perhaps it's time for real change at the UN.
The first change that should be made is to relocate the UN HQ to Paris, where UNESCO has always been situated or to Geneva, where many UN meetings are held. Distance from Washington DC will help diminish the neo-cons' perception (created by physical proximity) that the UN is just a recalcitrant arm of the US government bureaucracy.
The second change should be to cut America's share of UN dues to address the neo-cons' complaints of a lousy UN-votes-for-money deal. Were Japan to miraculously gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, its share of UN dues should be raised dramatically. Since they believe that their money over the years has bought an unspoken national apology for wartime atrocities, then they should have no problems with more cheque book diplomacy.
The third change should be to put the Bush regime and any other sycophants on notice that their claim that the UN cannot work without US leadership will be tested. With the UN's relocation, the EU would be forced into more assertive leadership around the world. China's influence will rise naturally with its economic development, and they would wish to become more engaged with an invigorated EU.
And where does this leave Dubya?
Out in the cold, being and feeling special, and free to engage with the world - or not.
When the Cold War ended, we optimistically thought that a unipolar world under US leadership would be benignly positive. We were wrong. Instead, a schoolyard bully rules the roost and long standing multilateral organisations and frameworks created by the US (under more enlightened presidents) have been trashed.
Relocating the UN to Europe would shift the schoolyard elsewhere and create room for other members to get on with growing in, and contributing to a more positive environment. An invigorated EU along with an ascendant China and India, will gradually create a multipolar world in which one of the poles, the US, runs the risk of near total isolation whenever it chooses to act unilaterally.
While it's true that the US has the greatest military power, it's funded by foreign sourced savings - principally from China and Japan. Were China to turn off the money tap, and if along the way, the OPEC currency base is switched from US dollars to say Euros, the ensuing damage to the US economy would cause Bush to think again about another illegal war.
Standing back a bit, it surprises me to be even canvassing these ideas. Yet, the troubling thing is that these ideas would find great support amongst many people outside the US.
How have things come to be like this - ie America versus the world? What has happened to the great respect and affection people around the world once had for the US? Could one country be so right and so many others be so wrong? Can one country do no wrong for all time?
If such a country exists, then it must be heaven in Dubya's vocabulary. But we know that at least 48% of US voters didn't agree with him. Instead, they are in purgatory, along with the rest of us anti neo-cons outside heaven's gate.
It is a truism that the UN does move ponderously and sometimes not at all, over issues. But for a body which is comprised of 191 nations, all pursuing their own agendas, it's a wonder it actually achieved some of its past accomplishments at all. Having said that, when neo-con reactionaries complain bitterly about the UN, what they really are saying is that they are having a tough time getting their way.
Surely it must occur to even the most dim-witted neo-con, that in anything resembling a democratic organisation, democracy means that people are permitted to hold different views to others. But I guess in a neo-con democracy, liberty and freedom means that you are free to have any view you wish as long as it's identical to mine!
Given that the Bush regime is such a trenchant opponent of multilateral international organisations; notwithstanding the fact that the US was a foundation member of just about all of them, the UN should really reconsider its position.
For all of Bush's criticisms of the UN, he has offered no alternative that other member nations (save for a sycophantic few) will countenance. After all, few countries feel a great need to subordinate their interests to those of a man who, until becoming president, hadn't even ventured outside his own country.
Neo-cons claim that fewer and fewer UN decisions go their way even as the US sporadically pays its UN dues. I wonder if I can use the same logic with the tax man when I file my next return? Levity aside, the UN is faced with a serious issue here. Perhaps it's time for real change at the UN.
The first change that should be made is to relocate the UN HQ to Paris, where UNESCO has always been situated or to Geneva, where many UN meetings are held. Distance from Washington DC will help diminish the neo-cons' perception (created by physical proximity) that the UN is just a recalcitrant arm of the US government bureaucracy.
The second change should be to cut America's share of UN dues to address the neo-cons' complaints of a lousy UN-votes-for-money deal. Were Japan to miraculously gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, its share of UN dues should be raised dramatically. Since they believe that their money over the years has bought an unspoken national apology for wartime atrocities, then they should have no problems with more cheque book diplomacy.
The third change should be to put the Bush regime and any other sycophants on notice that their claim that the UN cannot work without US leadership will be tested. With the UN's relocation, the EU would be forced into more assertive leadership around the world. China's influence will rise naturally with its economic development, and they would wish to become more engaged with an invigorated EU.
And where does this leave Dubya?
Out in the cold, being and feeling special, and free to engage with the world - or not.
When the Cold War ended, we optimistically thought that a unipolar world under US leadership would be benignly positive. We were wrong. Instead, a schoolyard bully rules the roost and long standing multilateral organisations and frameworks created by the US (under more enlightened presidents) have been trashed.
Relocating the UN to Europe would shift the schoolyard elsewhere and create room for other members to get on with growing in, and contributing to a more positive environment. An invigorated EU along with an ascendant China and India, will gradually create a multipolar world in which one of the poles, the US, runs the risk of near total isolation whenever it chooses to act unilaterally.
While it's true that the US has the greatest military power, it's funded by foreign sourced savings - principally from China and Japan. Were China to turn off the money tap, and if along the way, the OPEC currency base is switched from US dollars to say Euros, the ensuing damage to the US economy would cause Bush to think again about another illegal war.
Standing back a bit, it surprises me to be even canvassing these ideas. Yet, the troubling thing is that these ideas would find great support amongst many people outside the US.
How have things come to be like this - ie America versus the world? What has happened to the great respect and affection people around the world once had for the US? Could one country be so right and so many others be so wrong? Can one country do no wrong for all time?
If such a country exists, then it must be heaven in Dubya's vocabulary. But we know that at least 48% of US voters didn't agree with him. Instead, they are in purgatory, along with the rest of us anti neo-cons outside heaven's gate.
