Because the overwhelming majority of what has and will, for the foreseeable future, be posted on this blog pertains to my feelings towards particular candidates and his or her positions, I must provide this disclaimer: THE FOLLOWING IS THE BRAINCHILD OF ANDREW JONES FOR AMERICA AND IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF, NOR ENDORSED BY, ANY POLTICAL CANDIDATE.
Often times, my liberal and worldly friends will cite the United Nations as the overarching entity to which the United States should appeal to before taking action in the arena of international relations. This is because many “progressive thinkers” (apparently that is not an oxymoron) believe that the last best hope for world peace is some grand government, where all states can have a seat at the coffee table of international diplomacy. Needless to say, I have many objections to this.
The United Nations, as defined by its own charter, is not a governing body, but rather as a type of global alliance to fight fascism and oppressive governments who violate the human rights of their peoples. It is to prevent armed conflict, "save in the common interest". Well, my friends, if we accept these premises, the United Nations as failed miserably in its many attempts to live up to its promise. For the entirety of its existence, the United Nations has stood by while countless injustices and mass violations of human rights occurred. In fact, since the UN was established, nearly 90 million people have died due to genocide. Sometimes they knew of these horrific tragedies, sometimes they didn't, but in many cases, it didn't matter because the idea that the majority of nations from around a planet of scarce recourses can act in "common interest" is a deeply wrong-minded and naive concept of what could be reality.
Now, some have countered this argument by saying that the United States is an artificially wealthy and powerful nation and that other nations deserve to have some chance to be included in international discussion. On this point, I don't disagree. Acting as a moral and just nation with regard to international retaliations is essential for America, or any advanced state, especially given this interwoven global economy. However, I firmly believe that it is simply counter productive and counterintuitive to pour American resources into an organization so inept at accomplishing even a small fraction of its stated goals.
Currently, the United States is the only member-state to pay the 22% maximum percentage of the UN general budget. That total hits the American taxpayers to the tune of well over $400 million. The US share of the UN Peacekeeping budget, a more worthwhile fund, hits the maximum allowable contribution of 27% and costs the American taxpayers $1.28 billion. While many of my liberal friends are quick to point out that America still owes about half of that is not impressive. My question is why did we pay the other half? Surely there must be more efficient and beneficial ways for America and other advanced western states to spread the wealth and usher the third world into the 21st. Century. The propensity of the American people to give to charity is unmatched by the citizens of any other civilization on the planet and the US military is one of the most economical and efficient means of delivering relief aid. We need look no further than the Asian tsunami for proof of these claims.
While the UN serves several important and ingrained functions that I did not mention in this brief opinion piece, the bottom line is that the United Nations has largely failed to live up to its main stated goals because it is an overly-idealist and bloated bureaucracy with no true political authority. Because of this, I think its time the United States rethinks its investment in the United Nations. I am not necessarily advocating the end of US membership in the UN, but merely an evaluation to make sure we are getting our money’s worth. I think we will find either that our involvement in international affairs would be more efficiently carried out without the UN as it currently exists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Andrew, The history of genocide has been a longstanding interest of mine so you got my attention here. (Also, I can't sleep)
I'm curious where you get the 90 million figure for Genocide victims since 1945. Even if we use the most expansive definition of "genocide" plausible, I don't see how you get that number.
Clear cut cases (these are all high end estimates):
Cambodia 2 million
Rwanda 1 Million
East Timor 200,000
Bangladesh war 1971: 3 million
Burundi (72 and 93) 500,000
Guatamala 200,000
One might also call the Australian policies toward Aborigines genocidal on some definitions until about 1970, but you're only going to get a few thousand there in the post 1945 era. Tibet, I suppose, might count. Genocidal attacks on the Iraqi Kurds in the 1980's might get you another 200,000, and some have argued that the Soviet war in Afganistan should count as a genocide, which could get you another million if you're really generous about the war casuality/genocide distinction. Ethiopia's red terror? Probably 100,000. Others that I can think of (Pygmy massacres in the Congo, indigenous peoples in Brazil and Papua New Guinea) are bad but not going to add big numbers.
I'm sure I'm missing something, but unless I'm missing some really big stuff, or you've got a pretty unorthodox way of counting genocide victims, your number here seems way off.
On the main point of your post, that the UN has been an inefficient and ineffective means to prevent genocide is unassailably correct. I think attributing this to too much idealism is a bit simplistic though. The goal of the UN to promote peace is first and foremost undercut by the fact that the UN is more committed to state sovereignty than it is to peace. This isn't surprising, of course; it is, after all, an organization made up of states, and states like state sovereignty. That, and that for 45 years the UN was held hostage by the realpolitik the Cold War; the US, USSR, and China all had veto power over any security council action, and since most anyone doing anything bad was allied with one side or the other, the superpowers didn't want their allies embarrassed. See China w/r/t Cambodia, the US w/r/t Indonesia/East Timor, etc.
Post a Comment