Attention, everyone who thinks the United Nations can be a force for peace, at least as it's presently constituted: your heroes are running away after a few bomb attacks.
I do not bring this up to taunt anyone. (Well, at least that's not the primary reason.) How can an organization that pretends to be the ultimate arbiter of international law, and which has higher pretensions to be a world government and police force, possibly be taken seriously if they're such cowards in the face of relatively minor resistance?
The French, their sidekicks the Germans, and the rest of the hollow men in the Western world generally agree that the U.N. is the proper instrument for rebuilding and governing Iraq. They say they are altruistic, but really it's a cynical ploy because they know a U.N.-administered Iraq will be much more pliant than a U.S.-sponsored rebuilding effort. It would help their case greatly if the U.N. would show some backbone in standing up to thugs and terrorists.
I do think a reconstituted U.N. could be a force for good in the world, but they need to begin by kicking out the rogue countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. Full membership ought to be reserved for countries which meet minimal standards of human rights and non-aggression towards its neighbors. You say that Cuba won't get kicked out, because it enjoys the support of so many left-leaning governments around the world? You are right, and that is the problem.
Number of people willing to die for their country or religion: millions.
Number of people willing to die for the U.N.: several hundred, but few of them work for the actual organization.
Cost of one U.N. retreat: 2-3 car bombs, sporadic gunfire, scary politico-religious talk.
Cost of one U.S. retreat, as long as G.W. Bush is presiding: not determined.
Would you prefer a U.N. with military clout and fortitude sufficient to take over the world?
No, but it might be nice to have a force that can put a stop to things like the Rwanda genocide. 800,000 people died and Kofi Annan pretended like nothing was happening.
Such a force might also be used to guarantee abortion "rights" for women in Ireland.
And it could be used for crowd control at Rolling Stones concerts.
I'd be concerned if a U.N. force started imposing its positive control over other countries -- but if it imposed itself where law and order had completely failed, it would benefit humanity.
The cowardice is amazing, isn't it? And it's not like the U.N. or Red Cross have a bunch of queasy, childish constituents (i.e. Joe Blow voters) back home to answer to.
One truly wonders.
I suspect the US would not meet the standards you've listed for membership in the UN, in particular failure to sign the land mine treaty, non-aggression (why only against 'neighbors'? what's a neighbor?) and, some would argue, human rights (death penalty).
Gordon, that some countries would try to turn such a standard around on the U.S. is a demonstration of why the U.N. will never work without radical surgery. Most people think of human-rights violations as things like torturing political dissidents or shutting down labor unions, not executing convicted murderers.
The land-mine treaty is a wonderful example of useless international "cooperation." We didn't sign the land-mine treaty because it outlawed legitimate uses of land mines, and would destabilize the world (e.g., we would have to remove the thousands of mines along the Korean border that help keep the North Koreans where they are.) Groups and regimes that feel the need to use them indiscriminately -- that is, without marking them on a map for later removal, as is NATO practice -- will continue to do so.
(P.S. Refraining from signing the land-mine treaty was the one instance I can think of off the top of my head where Bill Clinton showed real courage. It wouldn't have cost him much to sign it, but he actually listened to his military advisors and withstood the harsh criticism from some quarters.)
Abortion on demand should be considered a human rights abuse before the death penalty is, yet many U.N. types think that banning abortion is a human rights abuse.
Eric, radical surgery? What kind of "radical surgery" would help the U.N. It is our friends and allies in western Europe who would want to turn human rights against us as much as any tyrannical regime!
I don't hold out much hope that the U.N. could be changed. That's unlikely. I'm saying that it would be better for the world if it did, and that it's worth thinking about what that transformation might look like.
Eric,
In that case, I agree with you.