The Uneffective Nations, Hizbollah, and Israel

Or the "UN" to many of you.

Kofi Annan has called for an emergency meeting of the Security Council to put forth a French sponsored resolution that asks for an end to the fighting, and the withdrawl of Israeli and Hizbollah troops from southern Lebanan.

Fat chance this will happen.

Because, well, the UN has been cooperating with Hizbollah. It is my understanding that it's post flies the UN flag along with the Hizobollah flag at some posts. Nari an Israeli flag is seen. Taking sides, anyone?

And, it has been announced that a crowd of Lebanese have attacked and ransacked the UN embassy in Lebanon. The UN in responsed condemned Israel (yawn - yet again). Well, the hoodlums may condemn Israel. However, even though the Lebanese support Hizbollah, I am not going to condemn their attack on that embassy.

Thank God we have John Bolton on the security council. There is a motion to put in peacekeepers, or something. Hopefully, for the above-mentioned reason, he will vote this down. He did vote down the resolution condeming Israel's actions (but not those of Hizbollah, who originally supported it). For those of you who are mad that John Bolton was appointed to this position, just be greatful it wasn't Michael Bolton who W appointed. Because that is the Bolton who really blows.

In any case, UN troops are not like totally unbiased. This is the organization that has been condeming "Zionism" (whatever they mean by that) since the 1970's. These are the so-called "peacekeepers" who engaged in various criminal activities in, say, Kosovo (the wrong thing to do there was to bring in the UN, the right thing, and the thing bringing more peace in the long run, would have been to arm the Muslims there, which would have shed less unfavoratism in the Muslim world had we taken the Republican action in 1995).

Since the Security Council is composed of five respectable powers, and a bunch of bozo states, it has been rendered ineffective. Because there are a bunch of competing states, and because each state sitting on it has a liberum veto. While I like supermajorities, a liberum veto is a little extreme, and nothing ever gets done. This little parliamentary motion is adjudged by historians as to the reason why Poland disappeared at the end of the 18th century.

And hopefully, this conflict, along with the liberum veto, will bring down the entire UN. Just like the League had completely sunk by 1943.

You see, the UN, like many a charity, has ceased to address it's central mission. To minimize world conflicts. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church, which even in it's corrupted form had some common sense, knew that warfare could not be eliminated (think Kellogg-Briand) but put many, many constraints on it. And it minimized the impact. As a result, few people were impacted by the fighting.

Instead, it is time to sink the UN and replace it with a new body. John Carlson suggested an organization that had similar values (unfortunately, when he brought that up, I called to pin in my two cents, but the callers kept wanting to speak about something stupid and insignificant from the prior hour, which shows that talk radio really isn't that deep). Here is my suggestion.

After Vienna 1815, there was this body called the Concert of Europe. No, Metallika didn't play at it. The Concert of Europe was set in place to reduce European conflicts. And the peace lasted 99 years - long after it went away, but it set the tone.

I would suggest replacing the behemouth with an international organization that was made up of democracies. Yes, China would be excluded, but that's the way the boat bounces. Since democracies have most of the wealth in the world, and much of the population, it encompass much of the world.

Here are the requirements of membership:

1) A state that has a stable democracy (meaning it has had a democratic type government for at least a generation, or 20 years).
2) Those that are democracies for ten years are given observer status.
3) Overthrow of democratically elected governments automatically terminates membership.
4) Each state is not only a largely political democracy, but also a largely economic democracy(i.e., has a largely capitalist-market-like economic structure) and largely social democracy (meaning that there is basic equality for all before the one) one, too.

Who would be eligible? North America, almost all of Europe, Japan, India, Israel, some Latin American states, South Africa, Turkey, some other states, too.

Who is put in observer status? Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Chile, Eastern Europe, some Latin American States.

Who is ineligible for membership? China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, most of Africa, Cuba, some Latin American states, some other states, too.

What do the last states have in common? Those are thuggish regimes where most of the human rights abuses take place. Almost all states have abuses of human rights - the US is no exception - but in democratic states, human rights abuses are on an individual scale - a rogue cop, for example - and there is no systematic method to launch into a tirade of human rights abuses against a class of people.

I suggest 20 years as that is how long it takes to establish a democracy. After ten years, there is promise, but the structure is still fragile.

Now, this organization would focus on two things. First, it would address security concerns. It would have a multinational force - but only made up of members of those states.

Secondly, it would address gross human rights abuses. What I mean by this is that it takes actions against those states who deny very basic human rights to a class of people because someone does not like that class. I.e., it would focus on genocide, or chattel slavery (as in Sudan). If resources are there, it could go after regimes who deny religious liberty.

Now, some states deny human rights to pesky dissidents who want some say in the power structure. While this is bad, it should not be the focus of any international-type body. Often times, those dissidents are terrorists anyway. However, those regimes often do not deny human rights to those attend a different church. As long as their organization does not challenge the government, they couldn't care less about it. The reason for my limitations here is that there are not enough resources to deal with this problem.

If I were to put together this organization, I would purposely provide prohibitions against certain silly activities - like "rights of the child" or expanding "scientific" knowledge, or stamping out hunger - and limit the organization to just these two functions. And, in the charter, it would prohibit the passage of any legislation or international agreements that interfered with the laws of a sovereign state - which was a reason why the League was rejected.

By limiting the scope of the organization, there would be much less opposition to it. And, it would be much more able to address it's central mission - that of reducing, and limiting the scope of, world conflicts.