WSJ Series: Your U.N. at Work

Spread out over a year now, the Wall Street Journal has run the occasional brief opinion piece under the title "Your U.N. at Work". These items are all rightfully critical of the United Nations. They've done four of these so far, and here are the links:

• March 30, 2007 -- describes the incredible Hillel Neuer's (from the NGO U.N. Watch) performance at the Human Rights Council where he notes the council's fixation with Israel, and is then threatened with future censorship by the council president.
• May 19, 2007 -- reports that Zimbabwe was elected to chair the Commission for Sustainable Development (no, that is not a headline from The Onion). Only slightly less bizarre was the election of Iran as vice-chair for the Disarmament Commission.
• August 31, 2007 -- more on human rights, including that Libya was put in charge of organizing an anti-racism conference.
• June 7, 2008 -- this is the one that caught my eye, and since it was labelled "IV", led me to discover the three previous entries above. This time around, we learn that a former Nicaraguan Sandinista regime official (also a priest) was elected president of the UN General Assembly. And that Burma's government has been given one of the VP spots. This one ends with:
  
  "Speaking after his election, Father d'Escoto called for greater "democracy" at the U.N. – an odd remark coming from a former servant of a communist dictatorship. He also called for the U.N. to take a stand against "acts of aggression, such as those occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan." That would be American aggression, not the Taliban's, the Mahdi Army's or al Qaeda's.
  
  A former Lenin Prize winner as General Assembly president and cruel Burma as vice president – another sick joke from the U.N."

Good stuff! I wish the WSJ would do more of these! I assume they have a much broader readership than the website of UN Watch, and so could have more of an impact on people's views of the UN.

As I've raised before on this blog... I really wish the US would get out of the UN. If we must have such an international organization (I'm open to that), then membership should have strict requirements. To start with, only democracies that protect basic individual rights would be allowed as members. If the benefits of membership were great enough, this alone might get some of the smaller non-democracies to abruptly change their approach to government. The bigger ones would thumb their nose at us -- or even band together to form their own club: "United Monarchy, Dictatorship, Communist, Fascist, and other inherently rights-abusing Statist Nations". Contrast that group with the countries that would be in the "United Democratic and Individual-Rights Respecting Nations". That would make quite clear what is currently obscured by intentional UN fog.

Romney On the United Nations

Since he's a conservative Republican, there are many things that I disagree with Mitt Romney about. But there are some areas of agreement too, and his recent statements about the United Nations seem to be on the right track. See Romney Calls UN an 'Extraordinary Failure'.

I agree that the UN has been a huge failure over the years, on many dimensions. Not that it hasn't done any good for anyone at any time -- surely it has here and there. But overall, I think it has done far more harm than good. And I don't just mean the obvious, direct harms -- such as UN workers raping women in the Congo, or massive corruption schemes like Oil for Food, or the many other items that have grabbed headlines.

I'm also talking about the apparently less obvious harms that arise from actually having a body that is composed half of democratic, relatively rights-respecting nations, and the other half literally populated by criminals. And make no mistake, that is what nations run by dictators, tyrants, monarchs, communists/socialists, and so on are -- they are nations run by criminals. Such statist regimes deny individual rights by their very nature -- some worse than others, but all to such a degree that they are different in kind than the relatively-free nations of the world like the USA, Britain, Canada, and so on.

So I'm glad to hear a Presidential candidate in the US call for "a coalition of 'free nations' as an alternative to the UN." Good for Mitt. Much of the news on this story centered around the UN's Human Rights Council, which the US has boycotted from the perspective of diplomacy and membership, because it insanely allows countries with horrible human rights records to be members.

But the HRC is not the core problem -- the UN as a whole is. I mean, what sense does it make to invite practically all nations of the world to gather to discuss issues, when so many of these nations are ruled by criminals? Do our police sit down a big table with known criminals to discuss issues in our cities? Uh, no. Too simplistic of an analogy? I don't think so.

One other thing to note about the MSNBC article linked above in particular, as it includes the following: "The comments highlighted the deep mistrust of the UN among many US conservatives, who view the organisation as an obstacle to US interests and a constraint on US power." While there might be some "conservatives" who bemoan obstacles and constraints to US interests and power in the world, this is a misunderstanding -- or blatant misrepresentation -- of the complaint that most conservatives, libertarians, Objectivists, and others have about the UN.

The primary complaint about the UN is not because it lessens US interests, but because it is inherently corrupt and does more harm than good -- objectively speaking. The UN is rotten at its core, because it allows nations ruled by criminals -- tyrants, dictators, monarchs, and so on -- to have seats at the table, chairs on the Human Rights Council, and positions from which to negotiate with the relatively free, rights-respecting nations of the world. That is the issue, and that is why the UN should be abandoned, and if any organization is created to replace it (debatable), it should be formed with far higher standards of admission.

More On the United Nations and Individual Rights

I've written many times in the past with my criticisms of the United Nations. A few weeks ago I watched a couple of videos of UN Watch speeches at the UN, and I was blown away. This sat in my queue to blog about for a few weeks, but as followup to my posting this morning about individual rights articles in The Economist, you can consider this one Part 2 posting of recent items on individual rights.

First, some videos from YouTube that are worth seeing:

• UN Watch Confronts UN on Sudan - Wow. A thorough bashing of the inaction on the situation in Darfur.
• UN Watch Confronts UN on Human Rights - Wow. A thorough damning of the council on human rights. Examples given of the massive hypocrisy of condeming Israel time and again, but doing nothing about far more severe issues in so many other countries around the world. Simply amazing. Then the speech is deemed "not admissable"... on that, see the next video.
• UN Watch: What is Admissable and What is Not - A litany of examples of things that have been accepted as speeches at the UN, to be compared with the above statement from UN Watch that was not "admitted". (Includes duplicate of the above video as second half.)
• UN Watch on Canada - A generally positive report about Canada's efforts, but examples given of how it could do more. Presumably much the same could be said about the other countries that rate highly on the UN Watch report card.

Then the second item I wanted to mention here is an April press release from the Ayn Rand Institute, The UN Human Rights Council's War on Human Rights. This is focused on the recent UN "resolution urging nations to pass laws prohibiting the dissemination of ideas that 'defame religion.'" Read their press release to see a principled response that defends freedom of speech as the crucial individual right that it is.

And the third item is the article "Bad Counsel: The UN Adrift on Human Rights" from the April 7th-13th issue of The Economist. It is critical of the same religion defamation resolution, but also has the following general criticisms of the UN Human Rights Council:

In its fourth regular session, which ended in Genevea on March 30th, the 47-member council again failed to address many egregious human-rights abuses around the world. Even in the case of Darfur, on which one of its own working groups had produced a damning report, it declined to criticise the Sudanese government directly for orchestrating the atrocities, limiting itself to an expression of "deep concern". Indeed, in its nine months of life, the council has criticised only one country for human-rights violations, passing in its latest session its ninth resolution against Israel.

This obsession with bashing Israel and turning a blind eye to so much else has disappointed those who hoped that the new council might perform better than its predecessor. Now alarm is growing that its anti-Israel bias is going to becompounded by an excessive zeal to defend the good name of religions, and especially that of Islam, at the expense of free speech.

...

A central task for the new council was supposed to be regular reviews of human rights in each of the UN's 192 member states. But nine months since its founding, nothing has happened. A key test of whether the council would prove any better than its derided predecessor would be to get this "universal periodic review" under way, Louise Arbour, the UN's respected High Commissioner for Human Rights, told the Geneva meeting. The council has now given itself a year to establish such a mechanism.

Predictions on what we will see resulting from this a year from now?

Insight on Darfur

Insight on the situation in Darfur, Sudan, comes from Anne Applebaum at Slate (thanks to Stephen Hicks for the link). In particular, consider these paragraphs:

I can offer no scientific explanation for why the tragedy of Darfur conjures up the specter of history's judgment and why other tragedies do not. But the answer must lie in the fact that this conflict has so few strategic or geopolitical implications. Because it seems to be in no one's "interest" do so so, a call for a U.N. intervention in Darfur surely feels—at least to Americans and Europeans who haven't followed China's involvement in Sudan's oil industry—like an act of real charity and not more evidence of the West pursuing its interests.

Equally important is the fact that Sudan plays no real role in Western domestic politics. Any discussion of North Korea will still evoke the Cold War, any conversation about Iran must touch on radical Islam. By contrast, when most of us look at Sudan, all we see is what Jan Egeland, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator, last weekend called "acts of inexplicable terror." Taking a stand against genocide in Sudan does not require anyone to take a parallel stand on communism, the war on terror, or the war in Iraq. It does not imply that you are left wing, right wing, pro- or anti-Bush. Once the United Nations is there, this may change: The U.S. intervention in Somalia immediately politicized what had also appeared to be an apolitical conflict. But at the moment, it is still possible to think of Darfur as an appropriate target for neutral humanitarianism.

None of this, I should emphasize, is meant to disparage the work of the extraordinary Darfur coalition, which has pushed an obscure and terrible war into the center of the international spotlight. Nor do I mean to deny that "history will judge us," for surely it will. But when future generations look back on this era, they will judge us not only for how we responded to the most primitive and the most apolitical of horrors. They will also judge us by the consistency with which Western and international institutions battled sophisticated totalitarianism in all its forms: That is, they will judge us by the United Nations' application of its own declarations on human rights, by America's ability to live up to the rhetoric of its leaders, by Europe's willingness to stand behind its stated values. The creation of an international coalition to end genocide is a stunning achievement, but its goals are still not deep or broad enough.

On American Giving

A very interesting column by John Stossel on American charitable giving and foreign aid. He first notes the well-reported facts that America gives less than many other Western countries in foreign aid as a percentage of GDP. However, he then correctly notes that this is equating "American giving" with only government giving -- i.e., only the giving that is forced giving. It doesn't include the much larger voluntary giving done by individuals. When you factor in charitable giving from the private sector, you get a very different picture.

For example, he notes that "After the Asian Tsunami two years ago, the U.S. government pledged $900 million to tsunami relief. American individuals donated $2 billion -- three times what government gave -- in food, clothing, and cash. Private charities could barely keep up with the donations."

Aside from the fact that I don't understand the "three times" remark (isn't it barely over two times based on the numbers he cites?), the important fact is clear: Americans as individuals give a lot to charity. And that charity helps the poor and in this country and the poor around the world.

Stossel gives a few examples to argue that voluntary, charitable giving is usually more effective too. This is important. Because presumably if you want to help the poor you want to actually help them, not just spend money with the intention of helping them. So to compare apples with apples, and do so on the relevant dimension, we should try to quantify the actual improvement in the lives of the poor as a result of charity and foreign aid. Money spent that is squandered by corrupt governments or money given that is absorbed through "administrative costs" of a charity or bureaucracy should be discounted relative to the money that is given and is less wasteful -- that is, that does more to actually help the recipient.

Consider this other interesting tidbit from the Stossel column: "Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks's new book, Who Really Cares, points out that Americans give more than the citizens of any other country. Individually, Americans give seven times more money than people in Germany and 14 times more than Italians give. We also volunteer more."

Wow... impressive numbers indeed. So keep those numbers and issues in mind the next time someone bemoans the relatively low foreign aid from the USA as a percentage of GDP. Ask them what the total giving by American individuals is, including both their forced giving and their voluntary giving. And then ask them to please provide the data not in terms of total money given, but to factor in the amounts wasted by administrative or bureaucratic costs, or that is lost through corrupt governments int he receiving country, thereby arriving at comparisons of the actual good that is done for the intended recipients of the charity/aid.

What Is and What Should Never Be

I have recently written (here and here) about the United Nations and why I think it is not just problematic at present, but flawed at its core, and that the US should immediately announce our intention to leave the world body by a set date (say, six months from now). But of course, my primary criticism of the UN -- that it sanctions countries 'led' by criminals (dictators and other statists who deny, on principle and by their very existence, individual rights on a massive scale) -- also applies to some actions and policies of the US (and other countries) in our direct dealings with such criminal leaders.

The latest example I've seen is reported in the Sept. 25 issue of US News and World Report, in the article "Dictator and Diplomat". It shows a grotesque picture of Sec. of State Rice shaking hands with Equatorial Guinea (see Wikipedia entry on EG) "President" Teodoro Obiang Nguema. The sub-headline reads: "Why is this man smiling? Here's a hint: It has something to do with oil."

So of course this is just another example of the US playing friendly with oppressive regimes because of our interest in the oil they have. Such supposed "pragmatism" is standard practice for the US, for many, many decades, especially it seems in dealings with third-world countries.

I won't make the same arguments here that have been made many times before... that the US shouldn't deal with such regimes, even given their value as oil providers (including the more difficult cases -- due to the size of the oil reserves in question -- such as Saudi Arabia). I only mention this case because again, if the US were to make a radical break from its past policies, and announce a completely new set of policies -- and hence its plans to leave the flawed United Nations -- I can't help but wonder what kind of changes such an earthquake would cause in the various dictatorships of the world. It would vary from country to country, but I wonder if the US did this, and if a few other major countries came along with us in doing so (say Britain, Australia, et al.) -- would some of the smaller thug states not look at the new reality and decide to radically reform? It is not at all easy to predict, and I'm sure most people would think I'm being naive and entirely too optimistic, but I wonder about this. I doubt Saudi Arabia or various other large countries would change their ways very quickly, but a puny country like Equatorial Guinea?

Afterall, the US is currently the only military and economic super-power in the world. Couldn't we use that position to change the world for the better by setting a new path, much as our founders did when they created the country? This would be for both our own benefit and for the benefit of all those whose individual rights are being violated on such a massive scale.

George Bush: End the Genocide Now

I have recently seen several commercials demanding that George Bush (and by extension, the US) "End the Genocide... NOW", referring of course to the horrific situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

I'll first note that the ads imply that the genocide in Sudan is somehow George Bush's fault -- as though he is responsible, instead of or at least in addition to, the actual murderers in that country. This faulty reasoning relies on flawed premises -- that are quite common -- in which lack of action is somehow presented as a form of causation. Sometimes this is explicit (as it is in some philosophical literature), but other times it is more nuanced, where the argument is couched in causation terms, but really what is being argued is that the lack of an action equates to moral responsibility for the events that occur. No doubt, there are some very limited circumstances where this can occur, e.g., a lifeguard at a pool who does nothing as a child drowns in front of them. But such cases are quite limited and there is always a strict context where the expectation and responsibility to take a positive action is what allows moral blame to be given when the person does not. But I don't see such a context in this case with Sudan: It can't be expected that the US will somehow prevent all murderous regimes from killing hundreds of thousands of their own people. Not when leftists around the world whine over US "imperialism" and complain whenever the US tries to impose itself, even in the slightest way, in the affairs of other, so-called "sovereign" nations (so-called because countries ruled by dictators and other thugs are not actually deserving of such a respectful designation).

But even more interesting to me about these ads is the explicit argument (request... demand!) they give. They don't demand that George Bush (the US) directly do something to solve the Sudan problem and stop the killing and raping. For example, it doesn't suggest that the US should invade the Sudan, temporarily take over that country, and directly fix the situation. That would work, though it would cost some US lives and would have other problems -- and I'm not here advocating for that.

Rather, I note that these commercials are actually demanding that George Bush step up and go to the United Nations, and get that organization to do something to fix the situation. So what is curious about this? Well, why get upset with Bush on this score? Why not instead expect the United Nations to do this on its own? Why does the UN only seem to do things of this kind when the US presses them to take actions? That is the assumption of these commercials! How weak and inefficacious can this world body be? It baffles the mind. All the more reason to think that the US should abandon the UN (as I argued here, and again a bit here).

Could NATO Expand and Replace the UN?

After my recent post suggesting that the US should abandon the UN, I was glad to read Daniel Pipes' posting about NATO. It is a discussion of a study by FAES, the think tank of former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, titled "NATO: An Alliance for Freedom". The ending of Pipes piece is particularly worth quoting here I think:

NATO's mission, therefore, must be "to combat Islamic jihadism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction mainly, but not exclusively, among Islamic groups and governments." This means "placing the war against Islamic jihadism at the center of the Allied strategy" and that defeating Islamic jihadism will remain the organization's "key mission" for many years.

A second key recommendation in NATO: An Alliance for Freedom: That NATO
invite for full membership countries that are both liberal democracies and able and willing to contribute to the war against Islamic jihadism. The study emphasizes bringing Israel into the Alliance as "an extremely important step," and it endorses Japan and Australia for full membership. I might propose, in addition, Taiwan, South Korea, and Chile. To encourage other, struggling, states, the study suggests an associate membership for countries like Columbia and India. To which I suggest that Mexico and Sri Lanka could join their ranks.

One topic that FAES does not explicitly take up but hints at: that NATO could replace the United Nations as the key world body. As the UN sinks from one low spot to ever-slimier depths, it becomes increasingly obvious that for an international organization to behave in an adult manner requires limiting its membership to democratic states. A new organization could be created from scratch, to be sure, but it is easier, cheaper, and quicker to build on an existing structure especially one with
proven capabilities. NATO offers itself as the obvious candidate, especially as
reconceptualized by FAES.

Mr. Aznar and his team have produced the best plan yet for confronting radical Islam. Will politicians take it up?

The US Should Leave the UN

Last week sure was full of craziness at the United Nations. With each new headline I kept thinking... when will the USA pull out of the UN altogether?

Many would agree that the UN has problems, like all major international organziations do, but claim it does much good work too. I won't sit here and assert that the UN has never done anything good for anyone. I don't need to make such a sweeping (and no doubt false) statement. But folks who argue that the US should continue as part of the UN (while perhaps trying to slowly reform it) need to consider these important questions:

1. Does the UN, right now and in the forseeable future, do more good than harm, or more harm than good? And for who? When considering the question of whether the US should be in the UN, the answer to the "for who" question must obviously be "for America and American interests". And this can certainly include our wanting to see poverty-stricken people of the world improve their living conditions, freedom spread to those who don't have it, and so on -- not just "American interests" in a narrow, economic sense.
2. In principle, should the USA sit down together with countries that are not democracies (i.e., they are statist dictatorships, fascist, monarchies, one-party-rule communist/socialist, and so on), do not respect basic individual rights (for all people, both men and women, and of all groups), and do not participate -- that is, do not allow their citizens to participate -- even semi-freely in capitalist globalization and free-trade?

The first question is debatable. Like I said, I won't deny that the UN -- with all its various programs and things it has done since its creation -- hasn't helped some people at some times. But it has also done a lot of outright harm as well. Plus we must consider the opportunity cost that its existence represents -- if it does some good things, but does them inefficiently, then the funds and resources it uses could have been used to help more people if the UN didn't exist.

So this is a complicated question. However, some of the reasons I think that the good the UN has done over the years is not enough reason for the US to continue to be a part of it can be found in articles such as Mark Steyn's superb "America and the United Nations". Very impressive, and highly recommended!

The second question is the more fundamental, and it is why I have always been against the America's involvement in the UN, and why I don't think it should ever have existed in the way that it has.

On principle, I don't think that countries such as the US, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, and many others should be members of international bodies that also have as members countries such as North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and so on. Any country that doesn't meet the minimal criteria I mentioned earlier should not be included in such a gathering of nations: some form of democratic elections on a regular basis, a constitution or similar mechanism that limits the government and protects basic individual rights (the principle of the rule of law vs. the rule of men), and some sort of at least partially capitalist system that respects property rights, free trade, and so on. Even very small countries that have monarchies that are unelected, but whom the people don't have major grievances with, alas, such countries should not be included either -- they don't meet all the minimum qualifications.

It should be noted that the leaders of countries that violate individual rights as a matter of policy and routine and who do not have fair and open elections, such countries are actually ruled by criminals. Such leaders do not have the right to lead their countries.

Think of this by analogy to regular criminals and their relationship with the citizens they prey on and with law enforcement. We do not sit down with those who violate our rights and negotiate our differences; we don't sit down at a big table or in a massive lecture hall and hear the points of view of murderers, thieves, kidnappers, and rapists. So why do we pay respect to, and give sanction to, the illegitimate leaders and representatives of countries who deserve no such respect, who by their very nature as the kind of leaders they are (or as representatives of those kinds of governments) necessarily commit crimes by violating individual rights?

We should instead shun them completely. No ambassadors, no official government connections of any kind, and no fellow membership in the same international organizations. Until they change their ways of course.

I'll note that if private individuals or companies want to do business in such countries (tourism, trade, etc.), that should, for the most part, be up to them. But at the same time, if something happens to them in such countries, the US government shouldn't be responsible for stepping in to save such folks either.

So, with that viewpoint in mind, what would happen if the US announced a position such as this, and intentions to leave the UN because of it? What if a US president, at some point in the future, gave an historic speech in which he announced the above principles and that, unless the UN self-reformed along these lines (by kicking out a great many nation states), the US would be pulling out of the organization in, say, six months? What would happen? Perhaps the UN would buckle and reform along such lines. But I think more likely, the six months would pass by, the US would pull out, several other nations woulf follow, the UN would have to relocate to some city other than New York (we could give them a bit more time to do that), and the US would then work to have strong relations with countries that have the positive attributes outlined above. Potentially, we might work with Great Britain and others to start up a new UN-like organization, if we all thought it was worthwhile to do so. Or we could devote more effort and resources to private charities that attempt to help third world countries, help stop human rights violations, etc.

Think about this while you read the article by Steyn linked above (which I strongly recommend).

Or think about it in relation to the newly formed Human Rights Council (which replaces the disgraced Human Rights Commission). The United States rightly voted against (along with only Israel, Palau, and the Marshal Islands) the formation of this council due to its serious deficiencies. For instance, how is it that the first group of 47 members includes Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia, whose inclusion is absurd, as well as major countries with mixed human rights records in recent years such as China and Russia? And consider that several of its first major actions have been to begin investigations into Israel's alleged human rights violations in the recent war with Lebanon/Hezbollah, while not taking similar actions to look into Hezbollah's actions? This is exactly the kind of thing that brought criticism to the old HR Commission! (See the Wikipedia entry on the new HRC for some quick info about the new organization.)

Of course, I don't see the US making such a bold decision and taking such a course of action with regards to the UN anytime soon. Sadly, to get our government and the sentiments of a majority of US citizens to that point, I think it would take several more incidents (of various kinds, perhaps) of the magnitude of 9/11. And I don't wish for that of course.