One Hand Clapping
RSS/XML | Add to My Yahoo!| Essays | Disclaimer | Main Page | My Bio | | Archives | Backup Site

Thursday, May 13, 2004


Churches vote to condemn Iraqis to deadly terror
To paraphrase what Will Rogers said about the Democratic party, I am not a member of any organized religion, I'm a United Methodist. And the UMC is a member of the National Council of Churches. And the NCC is a refuge for transnational progressivists, not to mention political neo-Marxists.

Therefore, it is utterly unsurprising that the NCC has determined

... that US policy in Iraq has become so destructive [that] the United Nations should take over.
I hardly know where to begin. How about a cursory look at the UN's record?

  • Since 1999, when UN peacekeepers entered Bosnia,
    ... the number of institutions where women and girls are being [sexually] exploited has mushroomed from 18 to 200 in 2003, according to the report. Girls as young as 11 have been lured under false pretenses from places like Moldova, the Ukraine and Bulgaria to work in the sex trade. [link]
  • More sex troubles in Eritrea, where the government accuses the UN of "destabilizing the region" and a "string of offences ... including housing criminals, paedophilia, making pornography and even using the national currency as toilet paper." [link]

  • In Sierra Leone, site of the largest mission in the world (16,000 troops under UN command), women are so frequently raped by UN "peacekeepers" that Human Rights Watch issued a special report.
    "What is particularly shocking and appalling is that those people who ought to be there protecting the local population have actually become perpetrators," said Steve Crawshaw, the London director of Human Rights Watch. "It's also very disappointing that there seems to be a deep reluctance to investigate and prosecute these very serious crimes. To turn away from a problem like that is a terrible dereliction of duty."[link]
  • What confidence would the Iraqi people have in a UN administration when the UN was a principal agent in keeping Saddam in power since 1991? Saddam bribed scores of people, not all of them UN officials, to keep UN-overwatched money coming to him in the "oil fotr food" program. Men he bribed included Benon Sevan, "the U.N. official directly responsible for the oil-for-food program."

  • On April 17,
    ... two American women and an American man were slain in Kosovo, and eleven people were injured when they came under armed attack by a Palestinian from Jordan. The killer was a member of the same body in which they served: the United Nations police force in the territory. [link]
    The same site also reports that the media in Kosovo operate "under heavy UN censorship," which would doubtless thrill the Iraqis.

  • Freed Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told the UN last December,
    "The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

    He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."[link]
    There is no compelling reason to believe that the UN's prospects in Iraq are any better than its dismal track record.

    There are two key things to remember: (1) the United Nations has no troops of its own. Any UN peacekeeping operation (PKO) is manned by soldiers and logistics donated by member states. (2) The UN has no money of its own. It is funded by contributions paid by member states.

    What this means in practice is that a fairly small number of countries provide almost all the money and almost all the decently-trained troops. Outside Europe and the Anglosphere, very few nations can field a force that is both numerically significant and suitably trained and equipped for PKO and stability operations. As the record sadly shows, a large number of such troops come from countries where the military is an oppressor class, not a protector.

    "Blue helmet" soldiers answer to no authority but their own national command. The UN has no prosecutorial authority for troops it supposedly commands. When UN troops commit misconduct or crimes, all the UN command can do is request their national command send them home.

    But should the UN be wholly cut out? Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos-Horta says no.
    Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.
    I think this is seriously misguided because Mr. Ramos-Horta seems to think that "many Arab and Muslim nations" are committed to Iraq's development into a secular, democratic nation. That is exactly what they do not want. A UN operation consisting of substantial Arab forces would be Iraq's death knell.

    As Desi Arnaz might say, "Kofi, you have some 'splainin' to do," starting with making a truly convincing case why the UN's performance will be different in Iraq than most of the rest of the world. Should we demand performance guarantees? Absolutely.

    Update: Glenn Reynolds links to a Telegraph article about how the UN mission for Sudan relief is a disaster in itself.
    "What is going on here is very dark," said one western aid worker at a non-UN agency.

    "Money seems to have disappeared. Who knows whether it has been stolen or whether it has just disappeared in the UN machine. The inefficiency is astounding."
    Astounding, yes. Surprising, no.

    Update: Eric Rasmusen at Indiana University has documented severe misconduct by non-US, Western troops under UN command, and it ain't pretty.

    Update: Fouad Ajami points out another curse the UN would bring to Iraq: the curse of a return to pan-Arabism. Ajami says, speaking of the UN's chief representative to the poltical reconstruction of Iraq, Algerian Lakhdar Brahimi,
    Mr. Brahimi owes us no loyalty. His prescription of a "technocratic government" for Iraq--which the Bush administration embraced only to retreat from, by latest accounts--is a cunning assault on the independent political life of Iraq. The Algerian seeks to return Iraq to the pan-Arab councils of power. His entire policy seeks nothing less than a rout of the gains which the Kurds and the Shiites have secured after the fall of the Tikriti-Baathist edifice. The Shiites have seen through his scheme. A history of disinheritance has given them the knowledge they need to recognize those who bear them ill will. American power may not be obligated--and should not be--to deliver the Shiites a new dominion in Iraq. But we can't once more consign them to the mercy of their enemies in the Arab world. At any rate, it is too late in the hour for such a policy, for the genie is out of the bottle and the Shiites will fight back. Gone are their old timidity and quietism. Their rejection of Mr. Brahimi's diplomacy is now laid out for everyone to see.
    What those calling for the UN to take over the whole operation do not seem to grasp is that the UN does not share their agenda. By and large (but not completely) the American pro-UN advocates really have no vision for Iraq much different than that explained by the Bush administration. They just don't want Bush to be the one who brings it about.

    But they need to understand that the UN plan for Iraq is pretty much restoration of the status quo ante bellum, without Saddam or his terror regime, but also without the true freedom the Iraqi peoples deserve so richly. What the UN apparatus certainly does not want is an Iraq whose people are both economically and politically free.

    by Donald Sensing, 5/13/2004 08:20:17 PM. Permalink |  





  • Feedburner RSS/XML readers online:


    Home