The governments in Russia and China very much want to uphold the principle that every now and then the state must crush people who want freedom. That is why they worked together to veto a fairly toothless United Nations resolution condemning the regime in Syria and calling for President Bashar Assad, the lipless murderer who runs the place, to step down.
The free world, still nominally led by the United States, erupted in outrage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the U.N. Security Council veto as a “travesty.” U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said the U.S. was “disgusted” by it. French foreign minister Alain Juppe said the Russia–China veto was a “moral stain.” A spokesman for British prime minister David Cameron proclaimed that “Russia and China are protecting a regime which is killing thousands of people. We find their position both incomprehensible and inexcusable.”
Advertisement
Although I agree that the veto was disgusting and a travesty, I’m at a loss as to why so many people are shocked — or at least are pretending to be shocked.
Isn’t this what the United Nations is about?
I’ve never quite understood the idealistic enthusiasm people have for the United Nations. First of all, it’s a club pretty much anyone can join so long as you have a government, internationally accepted borders, and someone is willing to vouch for your existence. As far as organizations go, that’s a pretty low bar — like a club exclusively for humans with a pulse.
The whole thing stinks from the top down. The Security Council isn’t a democratic entity; it’s based on brute force. Russia and China became permanent members when they were totalitarian dictatorships. They have seats because they are powerful, not because they are decent or wise or democratic. And the same is true for us. Our seat was bought with might, not right.
I think part of the confusion stems from a category error. We tend to anthropomorphize countries, talking about them as if they were people. U.N. members vote for stuff, so people think the U.N. is somehow democratic in more than a procedural way. But that’s not true. There’s nothing in the U.N. Charter — at least nothing that has any binding power — that says a government has to be democratic or even care for the welfare of its people. When the ambassador from North Korea claims to speak for his people at the U.N., it has no more moral legitimacy than a serial killer speaking for the victims he has locked in his basement.
But those who fantasize about creating a “Parliament of Man” overlook all of that, in no small part because they see the U.N. as a useful counterweight to the United States.
Less idealistic supporters of the United Nations insist that the place is important — nay, vital — because America must engage the world, and the U.N. is the place where deals get done. And that’s true. But that’s not a moral case for the U.N., it’s an instrumental one.
None of this is an argument for getting rid of the U.N., though I’d certainly be happy to see it go. But it does point to the stupidity of expecting nobility and idealism from it. Sure, the U.N. does good things from time to time, but that is because good nations want to see good things done.
What would be so terrible about giving those good nations someplace else to meet? And by good, I mean democratic. A league, or concert, of democracies wouldn’t replace the U.N., but it would offer some much-needed competition.
We’ve had to go around the U.N. before, and usually we go to NATO. That’s what President Clinton did in the Balkans and what President Obama did in Libya. Now Hillary Clinton wants an ad hoc “friends of a democratic Syria” similar to the coalition that helped topple Muammar Gadhafi (and Saddam Hussein).
That’s all fine, but there are problems with making these things up as you go. NATO is a military alliance. Many friends of a democratic Syria are not, themselves, democratic.
A permanent global clubhouse for democracies based on shared principles would make aiding growing movements easier and offer a nice incentive for nations to earn membership in a club with loftier standards than mere existence.
Or, since we know the UN is a farce, we could just pull out and let it collapse into a hole? At best, the UN does nothing for us beside provide cover, when we want it, for expeditionary activity. But, when we don't feel we need that cover, we do it anyway. Let's dispense with the hypocrisy of it all and just leave.
In a league of democratic nations, it would be important for members to be able to vote other members off the island. There was a time during the 1990s that Russia may have been considered "democratic enough" to have gotten into such an organization. But nations change over time. Have we ever removed permanent members of the U.N. Security Council? With enough potential vetoes, the U.N. eventually sinks into fecklessness.
The U.N. also suffers from representation without taxation. It may be worthwhile to consider a legislative house within this new league of democratic nations where representation is proportional to financial contribution.
I don't believe we should pull out of the U.N. as our veto power is an important bulwark against some of the lunacy that goes on at there. However I do believe not one cent of U.S. taxpayer money should go to funding such a corrupt hot-bed of anti-Americanism. If that precipitates the collapse of the U.N. then so be it. The world would be better off.
I get your point on the veto, but the counterargument is that without the US, the Useless Nations lack the legitimacy to enforce whatever edicts they wish to promulgate. Want to outlaw Jews? Go right ahead, Useless Nations. Now, try to enforce your edict... (shades of Andy Jackson... only the Supreme Court has more legitimacy than the Useless Nations ever really did).
Why not just move the United Nations to some place like the Sahara Desert and get it out of the United States of America where it should have never been in the first place?! It is an international institution and probably should be relocated in some traditionally neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden. Why does the United States waste its money, time, energy, and talent bickering with a bunch of countries who, for the most part, detest us anyway?
I knew, when Jonah publicized he was working on a book detailing liberal fascist tendencies, that the two of us tend to think alike.
Now, Jonah offers this:
"A permanent global clubhouse for democracies based on shared principles would make aiding growing movements easier and offer a nice incentive for nations to earn membership in a club with loftier standards than mere existence."
Two years ago, in my kitchen, I proposed the very same idea to a friend of mine.
My new entity would be called The FN -- or,. the Free Nations. Not all democracies or countries whose citizens are generally free would necessarily be members. My proposed membership was:
Denmark
Ireland
Poland
Czech Republic
Estonia
India
Taiwan
Tibet
Honduras
Chile
United States
Australia
New Zealand
** Canada
*** UK
The inclusion of Tibet is symbolic, to communicate loudly and clearly that the Chi-Coms are nothing more than criminal trespassers with fancy costumes.
Two asterisks connote positive trends strongly suggesting membership is in order. Three asterisks mean that there is work to be done for that nation to recommit itself to freedom before an invitation is extended.
There is no logical reason for sane, civil, rational nations -- both in terms of their legal institutions and their citizens -- for the free nations of Earth to continue to patronize an organization made up largely of tin-pot dictatorships, and who work at cross-purposes with increasing teh civility of the human experience.
Unlike Jonah, however, the creation of this entity for good guys I had in mind carries with it the following directive:
"[center, bold] EVICTION NOTICE"
"To: UN Secretary General
From: The Free Nations
Re: Dislocation
The undersigned, in accordance with its treaty to establish the entity known as The Free Nations -- who, together are committed to thwarting the aims of the tyrannical members of the body known as the United Nations, who sadly comprise the vast majority of its members -- no longer will claim membership in the United Tyrannical Nations.
Therefore, the nation that has served as host to the United Nations hereby rescinds that hospitality, with full support from each signatory nation to this notice.
You are hereby notified that the United Tyrannical Nations has 24 hours to vacate the premises of its building in lower Manhattan [specific address stated]. That includes every last vestige and accoutrement to your existence -- sticky pads, paper clips, staplers/removers, pens, you name it.
In sum: Get out of that building in NYC. And you have 24 hours to effectuate your permanent departure, or appropriate action will be taken to expel you from these fine shores by force."
"Good riddance, and fare thee well."
Other than that, Jonah and I are both on the same page. I think, according to David Crosby, "... Says right here on Page ~~ 43!"
I'm not going to accuse him of being an anti-Nippo-Semitic because he left out a huge number of countries. South Korea, Micronesia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Macedonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Finland, Mongolia, Norway, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Iceland, Sweden, Holland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Canada, South Africa, Colombia, Peru, Panama, even Mexico if he's including India and Portugal if he's including Ireland... The list goes on and on. As Abraham Lincoln said above : a silly person.
Canada does not need to "recommit to freedom" or anything else, nor work off asterisks assigned to it by anyone, nor take homework assignments from anyone to earn a place in such an organization, to which our historic claim would be at least as good as yours. Better, had we not always been a tenth your size.
First World War from 1914, not 1917. Second World war from 1939, not 1941. Korea. Cold War, in which we had some military failings after about 1970, but since you have some former Warsaw Pact, a variety of neutrals and then pro-Soviet nations, as well as European freeloaders, listed, I assume that does not matter here. Afghanistan too, with real combat involved for years. The only major items missing are Vietnam and Iraq, and frankly in both cases I consider Canada to have been as entitled as anyone to make decisions based on its national interest not to get stuck in a poorly thought out American mess without taking post-facto shots about its commitment to freedom.
You have also got some countries on that list who have committed nothing to the struggle for freedom in the last century except, within limits, their own.
Now from your listing of Chile, Estonia and a few others I suspect this list is supposed to be about membership based on some narrow interpretations of economic freedoms, though if so I would say even those countries listed are actually all over the map economically, and more so depending on what if any other freedoms you want to consider.
On economic freedom Canada does not need to take lessons from India or many others on that list. At this particular moment, as at others in the past, we need take none even from the contemporary US.
If the issue is petty-minded enforcement of politically correct nostrums by the law and by social pressure, then we are no worse than many on that list. And better than many, the United States included, as any examination of the last few years of NR could choke a horse with examples of US home-based oppression in these fields.
And on what ought to be the first criterion for membership, constitutional government under the rule of law, through free and stable institutions, we especially do not need any brownie points from any country on that list, certainly not the United States. The only listed countries with a claim to as good a record as ours are our Commonwealth cousins in the Pacific.
Follow
