The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
Feb 27th 2003, 5:21 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
by Charles Krauthammer
February 28, 2003
www.townhall.com
www.WashingtonPost.com
WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
on Iraq.
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
and Cameroon and Angola count.
For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
France.
France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
(BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
the United States.
As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
States on a matter of supreme national interest.
First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
influence.
Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
to mobilize the world against us.
Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
``coalition of the willing=B4=B4 now forming around us. No need to
abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO=B4s useful life. Like
the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
German footnotes.
=A92003 Washington Post Writers Group
Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
www.townhall.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=3DThey accepted dishonour to have peace.
=3DThey will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
by Charles Krauthammer
February 28, 2003
www.townhall.com
www.WashingtonPost.com
WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
on Iraq.
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
and Cameroon and Angola count.
For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
France.
France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
(BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
the United States.
As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
States on a matter of supreme national interest.
First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
influence.
Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
to mobilize the world against us.
Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
``coalition of the willing=B4=B4 now forming around us. No need to
abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO=B4s useful life. Like
the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
German footnotes.
=A92003 Washington Post Writers Group
Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
www.townhall.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=3DThey accepted dishonour to have peace.
=3DThey will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
Feb 28th 2003, 1:57 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
Thom:
Very good post.
Regards,
Pier Carlo Montecucchi
Email: [email protected]
"Thom Wilkerson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
by Charles Krauthammer
February 28, 2003
www.townhall.com
www.WashingtonPost.com
WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
on Iraq.
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
and Cameroon and Angola count.
For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
France.
France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
(BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
the United States.
As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
States on a matter of supreme national interest.
First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
influence.
Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
to mobilize the world against us.
Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
``coalition of the willing´´ now forming around us. No need to
abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO´s useful life. Like
the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
German footnotes.
©2003 Washington Post Writers Group
Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
www.townhall.com
=====
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=They accepted dishonour to have peace.
=They will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
Very good post.
Regards,
Pier Carlo Montecucchi
Email: [email protected]
"Thom Wilkerson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
by Charles Krauthammer
February 28, 2003
www.townhall.com
www.WashingtonPost.com
WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
on Iraq.
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
and Cameroon and Angola count.
For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
France.
France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
(BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
the United States.
As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
States on a matter of supreme national interest.
First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
influence.
Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
to mobilize the world against us.
Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
``coalition of the willing´´ now forming around us. No need to
abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO´s useful life. Like
the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
German footnotes.
©2003 Washington Post Writers Group
Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
www.townhall.com
=====
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=They accepted dishonour to have peace.
=They will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
Feb 28th 2003, 4:51 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
Thom Wilkerson plagiarized:
> WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> on Iraq.
> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> and Cameroon and Angola count.
In principle it's a very good idea to get an opinion from non-stakeholders
before embarking on a perilous course of action. Their judgment may not be
so clouded from proximity to the issue.
In practice, of course, the US is perverting the process by plying them with
gifts of myrrh and frankincense. Though I doubt anyone else would be above
doing that in the same situation.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
> WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> on Iraq.
> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> and Cameroon and Angola count.
In principle it's a very good idea to get an opinion from non-stakeholders
before embarking on a perilous course of action. Their judgment may not be
so clouded from proximity to the issue.
In practice, of course, the US is perverting the process by plying them with
gifts of myrrh and frankincense. Though I doubt anyone else would be above
doing that in the same situation.
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Feb 28th 2003, 7:09 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:21:11 -0800 (PST), [email protected] (Thom
Wilkerson) wrote:
>The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
>by Charles Krauthammer
I guess our friend Krauthammer would be more than happy if Isreal gets
exclusive rights for dealing with the area.
Wilkerson) wrote:
>The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
>by Charles Krauthammer
I guess our friend Krauthammer would be more than happy if Isreal gets
exclusive rights for dealing with the area.
Feb 28th 2003, 7:12 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote in message news:...
> The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
>
> by Charles Krauthammer
> February 28, 2003
> www.townhall.com
> www.WashingtonPost.com
>
> WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> on Iraq.
>
> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> and Cameroon and Angola count.
I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
60, Australia 19, etc.
> The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
>
> by Charles Krauthammer
> February 28, 2003
> www.townhall.com
> www.WashingtonPost.com
>
> WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> on Iraq.
>
> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> and Cameroon and Angola count.
I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
60, Australia 19, etc.
Feb 28th 2003, 7:56 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
In article ,
[email protected] (Maxim Projet) wrote:
> > The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> > Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans
> > perfectly
> > nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the
> > U.N.,
> > it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> > country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> > doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where
> > Guinea
> > and Cameroon and Angola count.
Curiously, these countries are all closer to Iraq than the US is...
And they probably "count" to their residents and neighbours...
> I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> 60, Australia 19, etc.
While I agree with you that the UN is a far from perfect institution, this
would raise as many problems as it solved. It would give all the power to
the big countries (which already tend to be the powerful ones) and render
the involvement of smaller nations pointless, rather undermining the UN's
authority as a collective voice.
For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an issue
of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
[email protected] (Maxim Projet) wrote:
> > The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> > Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans
> > perfectly
> > nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the
> > U.N.,
> > it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> > country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> > doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where
> > Guinea
> > and Cameroon and Angola count.
Curiously, these countries are all closer to Iraq than the US is...
And they probably "count" to their residents and neighbours...
> I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> 60, Australia 19, etc.
While I agree with you that the UN is a far from perfect institution, this
would raise as many problems as it solved. It would give all the power to
the big countries (which already tend to be the powerful ones) and render
the involvement of smaller nations pointless, rather undermining the UN's
authority as a collective voice.
For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an issue
of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
Feb 28th 2003, 8:01 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
Maxim Projet wrote:
> [email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
>> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
>> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
>> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
>> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
>> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
>> and Cameroon and Angola count.
> I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> 60, Australia 19, etc.
Well, the security council is a subset of the whole UN.
But anyway, I don't see that happening because the whole thing would
basically be run by India and China. How would you get the existing tiny
countries, who have everything to lose and nothing to gain, and a lot of
voting power at the moment, to go for it?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
> [email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
>> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
>> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
>> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
>> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
>> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
>> and Cameroon and Angola count.
> I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> 60, Australia 19, etc.
Well, the security council is a subset of the whole UN.
But anyway, I don't see that happening because the whole thing would
basically be run by India and China. How would you get the existing tiny
countries, who have everything to lose and nothing to gain, and a lot of
voting power at the moment, to go for it?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Feb 28th 2003, 8:06 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
It's only absurd when they are against you. It's not so absurd when they
are with you.
Now that is absurd.
Next thing he is going to suggest, how absurd it is for a homeless person in
the US to have the same vote as a millionaire. Maybe only land owners
should be allowed to vote.
"Thom Wilkerson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
by Charles Krauthammer
February 28, 2003
www.townhall.com
www.WashingtonPost.com
WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
on Iraq.
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
and Cameroon and Angola count.
For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
France.
France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
(BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
the United States.
As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
States on a matter of supreme national interest.
First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
influence.
Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
to mobilize the world against us.
Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
``coalition of the willing´´ now forming around us. No need to
abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO´s useful life. Like
the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
German footnotes.
©2003 Washington Post Writers Group
Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
www.townhall.com
=====
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=They accepted dishonour to have peace.
=They will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
are with you.
Now that is absurd.
Next thing he is going to suggest, how absurd it is for a homeless person in
the US to have the same vote as a millionaire. Maybe only land owners
should be allowed to vote.
"Thom Wilkerson" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
by Charles Krauthammer
February 28, 2003
www.townhall.com
www.WashingtonPost.com
WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
on Iraq.
The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
and Cameroon and Angola count.
For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
France.
France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
(BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
the United States.
As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
States on a matter of supreme national interest.
First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
influence.
Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
to mobilize the world against us.
Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
``coalition of the willing´´ now forming around us. No need to
abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO´s useful life. Like
the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
German footnotes.
©2003 Washington Post Writers Group
Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
www.townhall.com
=====
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=They accepted dishonour to have peace.
=They will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
Feb 28th 2003, 8:59 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
> While I agree with you that the UN is a far from perfect institution, this
> would raise as many problems as it solved. It would give all the power to
> the big countries (which already tend to be the powerful ones) and render
> the involvement of smaller nations pointless, rather undermining the UN's
> authority as a collective voice.
> For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an issue
> of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
The United Nations (and the League of Nations before it) was primarily set
up to protect small nations against powerful ones (assumed to be of evil
intent). That purpose would hardly be served by a "one person one vote
approach".
Democracy is a system when if 60 percent want red pencils and 40 percent
want blue ones everyone gets red pencils. It needs to be tempered with
mechanisms that provide a modicum of protection for the less powerful.
All mechanisms can have problems with really intractable situations and the
Iraq situation is definitely that.
Michael Forrest
> would raise as many problems as it solved. It would give all the power to
> the big countries (which already tend to be the powerful ones) and render
> the involvement of smaller nations pointless, rather undermining the UN's
> authority as a collective voice.
> For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an issue
> of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
The United Nations (and the League of Nations before it) was primarily set
up to protect small nations against powerful ones (assumed to be of evil
intent). That purpose would hardly be served by a "one person one vote
approach".
Democracy is a system when if 60 percent want red pencils and 40 percent
want blue ones everyone gets red pencils. It needs to be tempered with
mechanisms that provide a modicum of protection for the less powerful.
All mechanisms can have problems with really intractable situations and the
Iraq situation is definitely that.
Michael Forrest
Feb 28th 2003, 9:54 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
On 28 Feb 2003 12:12:00 -0800, [email protected] (Maxim
Projet) wrote:
>I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
>country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
>was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
>vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
>60, Australia 19, etc.
This seems fair in a way (one person one vote) but can cause all sorts
of problems as pointed out by other respondents. An interesting
possibility would be a "bicameral" UN along the lines of the
legislatures in various countries. One chamber would be based on the
principle one country, one vote with the other based on one person,
one vote. Realistically this would be too complicated; it's hard
enough for the UN to get anything done as it is.
To my mind the really dumb thing is having veto-wielding permanent
members of the security council. The world changes over time and the
UN needs to change along with it. Actually there has already been one
change to the "permanent" members in that Taiwan's seat was given to
the PRC (yeah, I know, supposedly Taiwan is a renegade province but
let's get real).
___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.
Projet) wrote:
>I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
>country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
>was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
>vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
>60, Australia 19, etc.
This seems fair in a way (one person one vote) but can cause all sorts
of problems as pointed out by other respondents. An interesting
possibility would be a "bicameral" UN along the lines of the
legislatures in various countries. One chamber would be based on the
principle one country, one vote with the other based on one person,
one vote. Realistically this would be too complicated; it's hard
enough for the UN to get anything done as it is.
To my mind the really dumb thing is having veto-wielding permanent
members of the security council. The world changes over time and the
UN needs to change along with it. Actually there has already been one
change to the "permanent" members in that Taiwan's seat was given to
the PRC (yeah, I know, supposedly Taiwan is a renegade province but
let's get real).
___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.
Feb 28th 2003, 6:19 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
Yet for all the stupidity of the situation - there seems to be a rather
prophetic symbiance.
That france - the great collaborator - and prolific capitulator!
Who has always needed the help of USA, UK, even miniscule Australia - to
get it's surrendered posterior from under the Nazi heel - and anyone
else's who took such a fancy!
That Guinea, Cameroon and Angola should rank equally.
Perhaps better to expend whatever it takes for their co-operation. Than
waste it on such a proven unworthy.
france has such a proven track record of buckling under pressure.
Though lacks the dignity to pass up the lucrative trade opportunities
that exist when Countries with Integrity honour the UN sanctions.
Strange that france suddenly becomes so pro-UN after dodging the UN
sanctions for the last 10 years or so!
Thom Wilkerson wrote:
>
> The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
>
> by Charles Krauthammer
> February 28, 2003
> www.townhall.com
> www.WashingtonPost.com
>
> WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> on Iraq.
>
> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> and Cameroon and Angola count.
>
> For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
> obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
> price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
> something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
> Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
>
> The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
> matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
> States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
> American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
> people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
> It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
> France.
>
> France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
> was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
> fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
> rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
>
> Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
> appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
> which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
> action for months.
>
> Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
> where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
> augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
> store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
> push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
> lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
>
> France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
> weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
> (BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
> the United States.
>
> As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
> leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
>
> That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
> demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
> States on a matter of supreme national interest.
>
> First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
> expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
> members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
> influence.
>
> Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
> war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
> contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
> Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
> to mobilize the world against us.
>
> Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
> replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
> ``coalition of the willing´´ now forming around us. No need to
> abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
> in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO´s useful life. Like
> the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
>
> We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
> around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
> supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
> of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
> and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
> like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
> threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
> weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
> redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
> friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
>
> This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
> Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
> of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
> ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
> German footnotes.
>
> ©2003 Washington Post Writers Group
> Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
> www.townhall.com
>
> =====
> At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
> Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
>
> "Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
> Say No to War!"
> [with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
>
> "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
> Never Solved Anything,"
>
> "Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
>
> "Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
> Chance."
>
> ,,,,,,,,,,
>
> =They accepted dishonour to have peace.
> =They will have their dishonour, and war. --
> Winston Churchill - 1938
> -upon the return from Munich of
> British PM Neville Chamberlain and
> French Premier Edouard Daladier
> having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
>
> What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
> appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
> today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
> Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
> the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
> piece of paper in the air....
prophetic symbiance.
That france - the great collaborator - and prolific capitulator!
Who has always needed the help of USA, UK, even miniscule Australia - to
get it's surrendered posterior from under the Nazi heel - and anyone
else's who took such a fancy!
That Guinea, Cameroon and Angola should rank equally.
Perhaps better to expend whatever it takes for their co-operation. Than
waste it on such a proven unworthy.
france has such a proven track record of buckling under pressure.
Though lacks the dignity to pass up the lucrative trade opportunities
that exist when Countries with Integrity honour the UN sanctions.
Strange that france suddenly becomes so pro-UN after dodging the UN
sanctions for the last 10 years or so!
Thom Wilkerson wrote:
>
> The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
>
> by Charles Krauthammer
> February 28, 2003
> www.townhall.com
> www.WashingtonPost.com
>
> WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> on Iraq.
>
> The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> and Cameroon and Angola count.
>
> For a day. As soon as their votes are cast, they will sink again into
> obscurity. In the meantime, however, we'll have to pay them off. Their
> price will be lower than Turkey's but, then again, Turkey is offering
> something tangible--territory from which to launch a second front.
> Guinea will be offering a raised hand at a table in New York.
>
> The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it
> matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United
> States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of
> American soldiers to rid the world--and the long-suffering Iraqi
> people--of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.
> It is only slightly less absurd that we should require the assent of
> France.
>
> France pretends to great power status, but hasn't had it in 50 years. It
> was given its permanent seat on the Security Council to preserve the
> fiction that heroic France was part of the great anti-Nazi alliance
> rather than a country that surrendered and collaborated.
>
> Half a century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to
> appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441,
> which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American
> action for months.
>
> Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain
> where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Saddam to
> augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in
> store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to
> push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the
> lives of brave Americans. We will have France to thank for that.
>
> France is not doing this to contain Iraq--France spent the entire 1990s
> weakening sanctions and eviscerating the inspections regime as a way to
> (BEG ITAL)end the containment of Iraq. France is doing this to contain
> the United States.
>
> As I wrote last week, France sees the opportunity to position itself as
> leader of a bloc of former great powers challenging American supremacy.
>
> That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to
> demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United
> States on a matter of supreme national interest.
>
> First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an
> expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent
> members--to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic
> influence.
>
> Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the
> war, should France change its mind, or postwar. No peacekeeping. No oil
> contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after
> Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try
> to mobilize the world against us.
>
> Third, we should begin laying the foundation for a new alliance to
> replace the now obsolete Cold War alliances. Its nucleus should be the
> ``coalition of the willing´´ now forming around us. No need to
> abolish NATO. The grotesque performance of France, Germany and Belgium
> in blocking aid to Turkey marks the end of NATO´s useful life. Like
> the U.N., it will simply wither of its own irrelevance.
>
> We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure
> around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and
> supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe
> of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan
> and you have the makings of a new post-9/11 structure involving
> like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as we do:
> threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and
> weapons of mass destruction. As part of that rethinking, we should
> redeploy our bases in Germany to Eastern Europe, which is not just
> friendlier but closer to the theaters of the new war.
>
> This is all for tomorrow. The imperative today is to win the war in
> Iraq. However, winning the peace will mean not just the reconstruction
> of Iraq. It will mean replacing an alliance system that died some years
> ago, but whose obituary was written only this year. In French, with
> German footnotes.
>
> ©2003 Washington Post Writers Group
> Read Charles Krauthammer's biography
> www.townhall.com
>
> =====
> At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
> Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
>
> "Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
> Say No to War!"
> [with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
>
> "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
> Never Solved Anything,"
>
> "Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
>
> "Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
> Chance."
>
> ,,,,,,,,,,
>
> =They accepted dishonour to have peace.
> =They will have their dishonour, and war. --
> Winston Churchill - 1938
> -upon the return from Munich of
> British PM Neville Chamberlain and
> French Premier Edouard Daladier
> having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
>
> What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
> appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
> today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
> Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
> the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
> piece of paper in the air....
Feb 28th 2003, 7:51 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
A good idea,, and as likely to be changed in the UN as any other idea..
Think the nations who haven't paid their UN subscriptions are probably
voting on the basis of effectiveness.
Pity - because the World desperately needs a Police Force,
and an effective UN would be a far more unequivocable leader of such a
Force than the American President.
In the interim I'll settle for what we have got.
Against the potential of nothing at all..
Maxim Projet wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote in message news:...
> > The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
> >
> > by Charles Krauthammer
> > February 28, 2003
> > www.townhall.com
> > www.WashingtonPost.com
> >
> > WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> > of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> > on Iraq.
> >
> > The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> > Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> > nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> > it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> > country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> > doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> > and Cameroon and Angola count.
>
> I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> 60, Australia 19, etc.
Think the nations who haven't paid their UN subscriptions are probably
voting on the basis of effectiveness.
Pity - because the World desperately needs a Police Force,
and an effective UN would be a far more unequivocable leader of such a
Force than the American President.
In the interim I'll settle for what we have got.
Against the potential of nothing at all..
Maxim Projet wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote in message news:...
> > The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
> >
> > by Charles Krauthammer
> > February 28, 2003
> > www.townhall.com
> > www.WashingtonPost.com
> >
> > WASHINGTON--America goes courting Guinea, Cameroon and Angola in search
> > of the nine Security Council votes necessary to pass our new resolution
> > on Iraq.
> >
> > The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> > Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans perfectly
> > nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the U.N.,
> > it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> > country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> > doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where Guinea
> > and Cameroon and Angola count.
>
> I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> 60, Australia 19, etc.
Feb 28th 2003, 10:11 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
[email protected] wrote in message news:...
> In article ,
> [email protected] (Maxim Projet) wrote:
>
> > > The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> > > Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans
> > > perfectly
> > > nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the
> > > U.N.,
> > > it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> > > country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> > > doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where
> > > Guinea
> > > and Cameroon and Angola count.
>
> Curiously, these countries are all closer to Iraq than the US is...
>
> And they probably "count" to their residents and neighbours...
>
> > I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> > country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> > was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> > vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> > 60, Australia 19, etc.
>
> While I agree with you that the UN is a far from perfect institution, this
> would raise as many problems as it solved. It would give all the power to
> the big countries (which already tend to be the powerful ones) and render
> the involvement of smaller nations pointless, rather undermining the UN's
> authority as a collective voice.
> For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an issue
> of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
To me it would be far fairer than the Vatican See and Tuvalu (combined
populations approx. 20,000) outvoting China on any matters. In any
system of UN voting there would still be a need for diplomacy and a
balance between self-interest and altruism.
All the best!
> In article ,
> [email protected] (Maxim Projet) wrote:
>
> > > The absurdity of the exercise mirrors the absurdity of the United
> > > Nations itself. Guinea is a perfectly nice place and Guineans
> > > perfectly
> > > nice people. But from the dawn of history to the invention of the
> > > U.N.,
> > > it made not an ounce of difference what a small, powerless, peripheral
> > > country thought about a conflict thousands of miles away. It still
> > > doesn't, except at the Alice-in-Wonderland United Nations, where
> > > Guinea
> > > and Cameroon and Angola count.
>
> Curiously, these countries are all closer to Iraq than the US is...
>
> And they probably "count" to their residents and neighbours...
>
> > I agree completely. A far fairer system would be one where each
> > country had a vote that was based on their population size, and there
> > was no power of veto. Just for sake of example, countries would get 1
> > vote per million people, so that the USA would get 290 votes, France
> > 60, Australia 19, etc.
>
> While I agree with you that the UN is a far from perfect institution, this
> would raise as many problems as it solved. It would give all the power to
> the big countries (which already tend to be the powerful ones) and render
> the involvement of smaller nations pointless, rather undermining the UN's
> authority as a collective voice.
> For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an issue
> of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
To me it would be far fairer than the Vatican See and Tuvalu (combined
populations approx. 20,000) outvoting China on any matters. In any
system of UN voting there would still be a need for diplomacy and a
balance between self-interest and altruism.
All the best!
Mar 1st 2003, 1:17 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
Rob McCulloch wrote:
> Yet for all the stupidity of the situation - there seems to be a rather
> prophetic symbiance.
> That france - the great collaborator - and prolific capitulator!
> Who has always needed the help of USA, UK, even miniscule Australia - to
> get it's surrendered posterior from under the Nazi heel - and anyone
> else's who took such a fancy!
Well ain't democracy a bitch. Welfare cows have the same voting privileges as
CEOs of large corporations. Tenants et the same vote as landlords. What is a
real shame is that one large and powerful nations which boasts about its
democratic roots shuns the importance of majority votes in the Security
Council. It values votes only when they are in their favour.
> Yet for all the stupidity of the situation - there seems to be a rather
> prophetic symbiance.
> That france - the great collaborator - and prolific capitulator!
> Who has always needed the help of USA, UK, even miniscule Australia - to
> get it's surrendered posterior from under the Nazi heel - and anyone
> else's who took such a fancy!
Well ain't democracy a bitch. Welfare cows have the same voting privileges as
CEOs of large corporations. Tenants et the same vote as landlords. What is a
real shame is that one large and powerful nations which boasts about its
democratic roots shuns the importance of majority votes in the Security
Council. It values votes only when they are in their favour.
Mar 1st 2003, 4:41 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Absurdity of the U.N. Security Council
In article ,
[email protected] (Maxim Projet) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in message
> news:...
> > For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an
> > issue of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
>
> To me it would be far fairer than the Vatican See and Tuvalu (combined
> populations approx. 20,000) outvoting China on any matters. In any
> system of UN voting there would still be a need for diplomacy and a
> balance between self-interest and altruism.
Well, sure, *if* the Vatican and Tuvalu could *always* overrule
anything China wanted, that would obviously be absurd.
But the point about the current system is that they can't do that
automatically -- the Chinese just need to get Liechtenstein and Panama
on-side to win the vote -- whereas with a population-based system,
the Chinese side of any argument would often be effectively unstoppable.
What we're really talking about here is the value of reaching
for consensus, isn't it?
In a one-nation one-vote system like the current one (referring to the
whole UN here, not just the Security Council) you'd need a majority of
nations on your side to secure a majority in any all-UN vote. That's a lot
of countries. And the greater the number of people that have to concur on
something, the less likely it is that they will support a really dumb or
dangerous idea -- at least I'm optimistic enough to believe so.
By contrast, if a much smaller number of people hold most of the power, it
only takes a few crazies among their ranks to turn the bad ideas into
reality.
(Of course, you could substitute "brave or innovative" for "dumb or
dangerous" in the above paragraph and it would still be true, which is the
other side of the problem.)
I guess some sort of weighting system might be a suitable middle ground,
with countries having (say) 1-5 votes depending on their size. You'd have
to work the math out carefully to ensure that you didn't inadvertently end
up with something practically equivalent to either the current or the
entirely population-based system.
[email protected] (Maxim Projet) wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in message
> news:...
> > For example, China could overrule *the whole of Europe* even on an
> > issue of primarily European concern. Would that be fair?
>
> To me it would be far fairer than the Vatican See and Tuvalu (combined
> populations approx. 20,000) outvoting China on any matters. In any
> system of UN voting there would still be a need for diplomacy and a
> balance between self-interest and altruism.
Well, sure, *if* the Vatican and Tuvalu could *always* overrule
anything China wanted, that would obviously be absurd.
But the point about the current system is that they can't do that
automatically -- the Chinese just need to get Liechtenstein and Panama
on-side to win the vote -- whereas with a population-based system,
the Chinese side of any argument would often be effectively unstoppable.
What we're really talking about here is the value of reaching
for consensus, isn't it?
In a one-nation one-vote system like the current one (referring to the
whole UN here, not just the Security Council) you'd need a majority of
nations on your side to secure a majority in any all-UN vote. That's a lot
of countries. And the greater the number of people that have to concur on
something, the less likely it is that they will support a really dumb or
dangerous idea -- at least I'm optimistic enough to believe so.
By contrast, if a much smaller number of people hold most of the power, it
only takes a few crazies among their ranks to turn the bad ideas into
reality.
(Of course, you could substitute "brave or innovative" for "dumb or
dangerous" in the above paragraph and it would still be true, which is the
other side of the problem.)
I guess some sort of weighting system might be a suitable middle ground,
with countries having (say) 1-5 votes depending on their size. You'd have
to work the math out carefully to ensure that you didn't inadvertently end
up with something practically equivalent to either the current or the
entirely population-based system.
