|
 |
Act of Creation by
Stephen Schlesinger
The
Founding of the United Nations: A Story of Superpowers, Secret
Agents, Wartime Allies and Enemies, and Their Quest for a
Peaceful World See
Reviews. Order
Here.
|
|
|
|
|
UNITED NATIONS - / www.MaximsNews.com@
U.N./
- 17 March 2005 -- The
United Nations today is an institution under siege.
The
Republican president and his leading colleagues in Congress are directing a
steady torrent of fire against U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan over an array
of problems -- the so-called oil-for-food imbroglio, a recent sexual
harassment scandal involving the High Commissioner for Refugees, the abuse of
minors by U.N. troops in the Congo and, most of all, the Security Council's
refusal in 2003 to endorse America's invasion of Iraq.
Now,
with President Bush's appointment of John Bolton, an angry neoconservative
critic of the United Nations, as the new U.S. envoy to the body, the
administration is acting directly to punish the organization for its actions.
This
assault on the United Nations was part of the concerted hostility the Bush
administration displayed toward internationalism from its first days in
office.
The
White House made clear as early as the spring of 2001 its indifference or
outright disdain for global treaties such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile
treaty, the Kyoto pact on global warming, the land mines treaty, the
international criminal court, the nuclear test ban treaty and others.
In
turn, to emphasize America's absolute self-reliance, President Bush pushed for
the largest defense buildup since the Reagan era, authorizing a military
budget greater than the combined sum of the entire defense spending of all the
other nations on earth.
To the
extent any of President Bush's men evinced concerns about the rest of the
planet, they opted for unilateral acts, especially after 9/11 -- most notably,
of course, the U.S. invasion of Iraq (the one exception being the U.N.-blessed
attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan).
As
Peter Beinart wrote in The New Republic in January:
"Conservatives
are fascinated by American power, but they are not all that interested in the
world."
This
mindset is especially poignant in our modern era, for just 60 years ago, at a
crucial turning point in American history, Republicans as a party almost
unanimously stood up to endorse American membership in the United Nations.
In
response to the losses of 100 million lives in World War I and World War II,
the conservatives ensconced in the Senate discarded their isolationism and
embraced the globe's newest international security body.
Leaders
such as Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan praised the United Nations as
"the world’s only chance" to stop World War III.
New
York Gov. Thomas Dewey, the Republican nominee for the presidency in 1944 and
1948, observed:
"There
is a clear mandate from the American people" for the United Nations. John
Foster Dulles, later Eisenhower's secretary of state, asserted that the United
Nations would help "promote human rights and liberties."
Other
iconic figures of the party at that time such as Nelson Rockefeller and Harold
Stassen lauded the establishment of the body.
Throughout
the next 50 years, despite occasional differences with the organization, both
Republican and Democratic administrations regularly dealt with the United
Nations as a matter of policy -- and usually got their way.
For
example, the United Nations backed the dispatch of U.S. forces to Korea in
1950 to thwart a communist attack, into Kuwait in 1991 to turn back Saddam
Hussein and into Haiti in 1994 to reinstall Jean-Bertrand Aristide and also
helped America to settle the Suez crisis of 1956 and the Cuban Missile Crisis
of 1962.
The
United Nations even reformed itself at our urging.
When
the United States has made up its mind at the United Nations, it almost always
called the tune.
In
1994, however, American history took a drastic detour.
A new
brand of Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives on a
right-wing platform calling for a more nationalistic and anti-U.N. foreign
policy.
This
Republican class included many legislators who did not possess passports.
In
1998, then House Majority Leader Dick Armey stated proudly,
"I've
been to Europe once. I don’t have to go again."
In
2000, America elected a Republican president, George Bush, who himself had
barely traveled abroad.
And,
after a Republican takeover of the Senate, the ultraconservative Jesse Helms,
the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, barred further payments
of U.S. dues to the United Nations as "wasteful."
Still,
even under these hard-right stewards, it remains questionable today why the
Republican Party continues to be so dissatisfied with the United Nations.
The
record is quite favorable to the United States.
First,
the United Nations annually saves America taxpayer dollars by helping to share
the burdens of keeping the peace with other nations.
Right
now, the United Nations oversees 18 peace operations in war-torn nations
around the globe.
Would
America wish to pacify and pay for all those problematic hotspots all by
itself?
Second,
the United Nations takes over rescue missions when natural disasters strike,
as happened recently with the tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
Would
Washington want to assume the responsibility alone to clean up after such
horrific calamities?
Third,
even in Iraq, where the United Nations once balked, it has since then aided
the United States in setting up an interim government, supervising recent
Iraqi elections and assisting those elected to write a new constitution.
Would
the Bush administration prefer no involvement by the United Nations?
Fourth,
for its internal flaws, the United Nations has usually acted to remedy itself.
Most
recently, it created an investigative body under the direction of a leading
member of the American establishment, Paul Volcker, to probe the oil-for-food
scandal.
Perhaps
it is time for the Republican Party to consider casting aside its animus
against the United Nations and re-pledging its 1945 allegiance to the
organization.
Regrettably
the appointment of John Bolton, an avid unilateralist, suggests that
Washington is not ready to take that step.
Labels: United
Nations, U.N.,
~~~~~
MaximsNews.com, An Independent Voice from the
U.N., provides commentary and analysis from
leading world figures: King Abdullah II
(Jordan), HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein
(Jordan), Sir Brian Urquhart, Hans Blix, Amb.
Richard Holbrooke, Anwar Ibrahim, Bianca Jagger,
Dr. Nafis Sadik, Shashi Tharoor, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Noeleen Heyzer, Kerry
Kennedy, Ian Williams, Stephen Schlesinger, Sen.
Timothy E. Wirth, Marc Morial, Amb. Jayantha
Dhanapala (Sri Lanka), Amb. Pierre Schori
(Sweden), Amb. William H. Luers, Susan Roosevelt
Weld, Rory Kennedy, Mehri
Madarshahi, J. Michael Adams, Gloria Feldt,
Jeffrey Laurenti, Rodney D. Smith, Ashley
Bommer, Rory
O'Connor, Genevieve Stamper, Max Stamper and
others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MaximsNews Network® LLC is a Global News Network reaching over 30,000 in the International Community. It is associated with MediaChannel.org and Globalvision News Network, global news and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 135 countries.
MaximsNews®LLC is in partnership with the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund.
Established in 1999.
The views expressed are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of MaximsNews®
LLC.
MaximsNews.com
U.N. ® LLC News for the United Nations and the International Community -
www.MaximsNews.com
| MaximsNews@MaximsNews.com |
Please
contact us about Republishing:
Syndication@MaximsNews.com ©Copyrights 1999 - 2007, MaximsNews® LLC. All rights
reserved.
|
