> Wouldn't a democracy caucus be more likely to
> speak its mind outside of the United Nations
> system?

Yes, it would. Isn't it unfortunate, then that, due to the co-option of the most important democracy by neo-cons, democracies have rightly lost all credibility on the world stage.

If you livedc under a dictatorship, how much faith would you put in the Cheney administration to work in your interests?

What brave new world!, etc.

I love the idea of a RW ideologue whose hero has singlehandedly trashed every shred of America's reputation as a beacon of hope to the world now calling for dissolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

What to you propose replacing the Commission with, Dan? Or shall we simply call a spade a bloody shovel and not bother with human rights organizations at all?

Think of how much easier Le Dauphin's Excellent Iraqi Adventure would be if he didn't have to try whitewashing it as a human righst & dignity project.

The UN, whose members and clients are all governments, unsurprisingly, loyally represents the interests of governments and worldwide bureaucrats. Since there is almost no democratic checks and balances on this outfit's behavior, the result is cronyism and oil for food corruption. I'm sure a democracy caucus would be a good thing, but too many nations have a vested interest in a useless human rights organization for the UN commission to go away.

Imagine if, for example, the outrages in the Iraqi prisons had been committed by UN forces from, say, Jordan, rather than US forces. Where would the pressure come from to do something about the problem? Here in the US, the news is reported, we get outraged, the Bush political people sweat, and suddenly, an investigation that was puttering along is accelerated. Oil for food, on the other hand, looks set to putter along indefinitely (unless it looks like UN appropriations here in the US are threatened.)

Can anyone can point to anything good this commission has ever done?

I agree with Dan. Just because an organization has a name reflecting something we all believe in doesn't mean it is worth spending any money on.

If I could make a nuts-and-bolts point here, though, not getting surprised about what other UN delegations are doing is one of the things we pay our own to do. I understand that with John Negroponte headed to Iraq there is a bit of a vacuum at the top of the US delegation -- this being the Bush administration, consideration of Negroponte's appointment as ambassador in Baghdad can be assumed to have gone on without any thought as to who would replace him in New York. This shouldn't have meant that the African delegations could sneak this outrageous nomination in right before the deadline without the American delegation knowing anything about it until it happened. But it did.

I am still appalled at the UN's behavior ten years ago with respect to Rwanda and Bosnia (beyond the UNHCR was the outrageous behavior of UNPROFOR). I'm of a mind more and more that operating outside the purview of such a corrupt organization continues to be a better idea by the day.

The status quo has perpetuated itself brilliantly in the UNHCR's case.

goethean:
of course, it's all neocons' fault. And Paul Wolfowitz constitues the whole Administration. And credibility on the world stage is determined by Kofi Anan, Chirac, and BBC.
Now listen, you ignorant brat: I have lived under a totalitarian dictatorship (you know, a real one: one you can't bitch about the way your're bitching about your govt), and thanks to Reagan's neocon policies, I don't anymore.
So screw the UN, and more power to Bush, Cheney, and especially Rumsfeld. If you don't appreciate your freedom, then what makes you deserve it?

That would set a most useful precedent. I'd like to see it extended to our State Department.

What makes you think we could disband the UN? What if they all just went on without us? That would be a little embarassing, no?

I don't think anyone is talking of disbanding the UN. I know that I wasn't, for the reason Dan indicates. It's just good to know what the institutional bias is going to be, and what we can and can't depend on them for.

But, Sebastien, there certainly have been international organizations in the past without US participation. The League of Nations didn't work out too well, did it?

Sebastian,

Drezner mentioned disbanding the Human Rights Commission, not the UN.

goethean:

If you livedc under a dictatorship, how much faith would you put in the Cheney administration to work in your interests?

More than I'd put in my own government, if I lived under a dictatorship. Is it you consider the Bush administation worse than the increasingly hypothetical dictatorship? (Snicker)

Sebatstian:

What makes you think we could disband the UN? What if they all just went on without us? That would be a little embarassing, no

Not particualrly, no. Consider the Leauge of Nations. The criminality within the UN that we're being shown is far worse, and I expect there is worse yet to come.

Dan:

[Why not just disband the whole UN?--ed. Because in a world of sovereign states, it is necessary to have an organization that encompasses all of them.

Why?
What good has the UN ever done, toward it's goals that could not be and in fact was not done, on many levels, outside the UN?

Perhaps the naysayers on the subject of the UN are remembering the old saying about absolute power, as regards corruption.

In all seriousness; what possible benefit is there in being represented through a an org htat is foundationally corrupt, other than to the criminals?

Er:

[Why not just disband the whole UN?--ed. Because in a world of sovereign states, it is necessary to have an organization that encompasses all of them. Besides, the organization has its uses.]

As to the League of Nations not working out, so what? Maybe the new organization would. Nevertheless - my point is really just to prick Dan for his disappointingly typical American arrogance.

I agree that we need some sort of international body like the United Nations. The ultraconservatives are wrong to despise the very notion of such an organization. But is it possible that the present entity is too corrupt to be saved? Should we start all over? Whatever, that is a legitimate debate. There is, however, something that is beyond dispute: many Liberals need to grow up and stop acting like children. These immature people prefer to live in La-La Land and pretend that the United Nations truly represents utopian wonderfulness and moral purity. In other words, I might be talking about most people who vote for the Democrat Party. Republicans normally have a far more realistic understanding concerning the faults of the UN. This is why Democrats cannot be trusted to deal responsibly with foreign policy issues.

Sorry bithead - missed your post prior to my previous response.

No - you suffer from the same fundamental palsy of mental constitution that causes much of the right to tilt so aggressively at every reactionary windmill they pass. It's significantly easier to dismiss the entire UN as "foundationally corrupt" than to go through the due diligence of nurturing the good parts and attempting to change the parts we don't like (which aren't really 'bad' per se, but merely represent each country doing what's in it's own interest). As to the good parts of the UN - heard much about polio lately?

If I may tilt at my own windmill now, this is so fucking typical of the entire Republican party. It's a kind of profound, childlike impatience - an unwillingness to do any hard work. It's Iraq all over again. Fixing is harder than starting over, but it shows character. It shows maturity. We could change the world if we had the diligence and determination to do it one task at a time, but the Republican party (of which you must certainly be a member) can't force itself to swallow it's Ritalin and work on something that may take longer than one exciting bang-pop-boom afternoon.

“Nevertheless - my point is really just to prick Dan for his disappointingly typical American arrogance.”

Two cheers for American arrogance. What about three? No, that would be going a bit too far. We are the ones who put ourselves on the line. Most of the rest of the world parasites off of us. They act like Canadians and French people. America is essentially the only major nation on Earth holding off the forces of nihilism. The British help out only if sufficient prodded. Most of the other large countries wallow in selfishness and childish immaturity.

Hey - that was perfect. Just as I was explaining the fundamental immaturity of the Republican worldview, David Thomson pops up and provides a perfect example. "Utopian wonderfulness and moral purity"? Who the hell every said anything like that outside of a coffee shop full of cheese-eating, acne-pocked college students? Answer: no one. It's a straw man that Thomson in a kind of RNC-sponsored wet dream may very well believe can be found in nature.

Mainstream Liberals and Democrats believe in realpolitik just like Republicans. Unlike Republicans, though, we understand that the UN represents the complex accumulation of the self-interests of each of it's member nations. It's Republicans who are consistently outraged that the UN's member countries flagrantly put their self-interest ahead of bible-belt consistent moral positions.

Does anyone truly believe that the United States wouldn't vote to put Sudan on the Human Rights Commission if they fed us a few tips on where to find Osama Bin Laden?

Oh no! Here come the "forces of nihilism"!!!!

Seriously, Dostoevsky, what the hell are you talking about? Islamists aren't nihilists. Al Qaeda aren't nihilists. You're talking, perhaps, about the idiots who brought us Barney the purple dinosaur?

Seriously, capital-N Nihilists believe, more or less, that moral values are baseless. The guys we're fighting have distinct and easily identified moral values that are just very different from ours. Beating them (short of genocide, which may be your preferred method) requires some kind of understanding of those values. Calling them nihilists, while in keeping with RNC talking points, just makes you sound dumb.

Is it this kind of thinking that inspires your policy prescriptions?

sebastien:

Innocent query. Do you think the UN Commission on Human Rights is accomplishing anything? That's really the point of Dan's post. He finds the organization a joke. (Libya the chair; Sudan,
actively involved in something that may be genocide, a member.)

As a matter to consider, there are an awful lot of NGOs out there that monitor human rights abuses. And the US State Department and the EU (among others) also monitor human rights in other countries. certainly, all these entities have their biases. The UN has its bias, too. Does the perspective of the UN Commission really add any new information to the mix, or add that much in the way of moral authority?

This isn't a subject I know much about. A surf of the UN website reveals a lot of position papers that manage to say nothing at length. I now know that: "During its regular annual session, the Commission adopts about a hundred resolutions, decisions and Chairperson's statements on matters of relevance to individuals in all regions and circumstances." But not much else.

So. Are you willing/able to educate me?

“It's a straw man that Thomson in a kind of RNC-sponsored wet dream may very well believe can be found in nature.”

I’m sorry to have to remind you that Daniel Patrick Moynihan died a few years ago. It’s obvious that you did not listen to the campaign speeches of John Kerry, Howard Dean, and the other utopian fools. These candidates don’t even begin to advocate for a realistic understanding of the United Nations. On the contrary, they repeatedly speak about the UN in a manner similar to a small child talking the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

“Unlike Republicans, though, we understand that the UN represents the complex accumulation of the self-interests of each of it's member nations.”

Yup, that’s why the United Nations focusses on Israel as supposedly among the most evil nations on the planet.

sebastien:

A quibble...

Certainly, a devout muslim is no nihilist. The Al Q types, though, seem obsessed with killing mass quantities of people. They have reason which they detail, but these reasons seem to shift over time.

The conclusion --

Al Q is mostly interested in killing people or scaring people to gain power.

It's fair to call that nihilist. I understand that the Al Q types would differ.

“The guys we're fighting have distinct and easily identified moral values that are just very different from ours. Beating them (short of genocide, which may be your preferred method) requires some kind of understanding of those values.”

Let’s have some fun. How does this revision of the above quote sound?

“The Nazis we're fighting have distinct and easily identified moral values that are just very different from ours. Beating them (short of genocide, which may be your preferred method) requires some kind of understanding of those values.”

I truly understand the values of the militant Muslims. This is no mystery to me. I’ve read my share of the works of Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. My conclusion? We must either kill or jail these people while supporting the more moderate elements of the Middle East. Gee, isn’t that easy?

Ciel

"I love the idea of a RW ideologue whose hero has singlehandedly trashed every shred of America's reputation as a beacon of hope to the world now calling for dissolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights."

Wow, you consider Drezner a right-wing ideologue? It sounds like you haven't really heard many right-wing ideolgues. Try listening to talk radio.

Appalled Moderate - I am neither willing nor able. The subthread I was involved in had to do with Drezner's joke/revelation at the bottom of his post having to do with the entire UN. As to his more specific point regarding the UNHCHR, I'll just say that although it does seem ineffective and disbandable, rather more is made of it than need be. If I were President, our foreign policy position regarding the UNHCHR would be to see it as a tool in our tool chest. At most times, an entirely ineffective tool, but a tool nonetheless that might someday come in handy.

I frequently hear conservatives decrying it's existence as though it's actually doing harm. It's not clear what kind of harm they think it's doing - just that they think it's a joke. The truth of the matter is that they resent the existence of an extranational organization that could ever presume to pass judgement on the United States. Fine. Whatever.

I think I'll just repeat an earlier point that I failed to make clearly - I think people who hate the United Nations fail at the game of global politics. A successful American foreign policy would play the UN like a flute - the UNHCHR included. A less visionary administration would simply withdraw from it, leaving one less tool in it's toolchest.

“A successful American foreign policy would play the UN like a flute - the UNHCHR included.”

Agreed. that’s why George W. Bush is the lesser of evils. In case you were not aware---Senator Joseph Lieberman did not win the Democrat nomination. He was that party’s last chance

DT -

your revision of my comment is inoperative. You could beat the Nazis without understanding them because they wore little Nazi uniforms.

Guerilla warfare requires a far more subtle understanding of the enemy, as I should have thought obvious. (But it was fun! Thanks for playing!)

Appalled Moderate:

There may be something to your quibble but it's hard to say. I find it as distasteful as you do delve to deeply into the psyche of a mass-murderer like Osama Bin Laden, but since you asked - he seems to have been really set off by the presence of the infidel on Saudi soil. His motivations seem sincere, if irrational. I see no reason to believe that Al Qaeda wants power - they seem to really see themselves as God's infantry, and they're fighting this war the only way an underequipped, outmanned underdog army can fight a war with any hope of winning.

Crazy and dangerous sure, but nihilist?

sebastien:

US troops are no longer in Saudi Arabia. If that were OBL's only motivation, he could decalre victory.

I guess in my mind, what I see are folks being taught that it is OK to murder the infadel, you'll get many a virgin in paradise if you murder the infadel, we must study multitudes of ways to murder the infadel.

Yes, there are lots of rules in the OBL follower's life. Many prayers must be said. A Holy Book must be followed literally (if not in spirit)

But what are they studying? A more holy society? Or ways to kill people. As the Francoists used to say, "Viva la muerte!" Nihilist.

I see your point. I think you see mine. I think we will just graciously disagree.

No - you suffer from the same fundamental palsy of mental constitution that causes much of the right to tilt so aggressively at every reactionary windmill they pass. It's significantly easier to dismiss the entire UN as "foundationally corrupt" than to go through the due diligence of nurturing the good parts and attempting to change the parts we don't like (which aren't really 'bad' per se, but merely represent each country doing what's in it's own interest). As to the good parts of the UN - heard much about polio lately?

Explain to me how that would never have been accomplished by other means.

At some point, you have to admit there's a major issue with the old car, stop pouring parts and money into the old car, and get a new one, or find other means of transport.

“There may be something to your quibble but it's hard to say. I find it as distasteful as you do delve to deeply into the psyche of a mass-murderer like Osama Bin Laden, but since you asked - he seems to have been really set off by the presence of the infidel on Saudi soil. His motivations seem sincere, if irrational. I see no reason to believe that Al Qaeda wants power - they seem to really see themselves as God's infantry, and they're fighting this war the only way an underequipped, outmanned underdog army can fight a war with any hope of winning.

Crazy and dangerous sure, but nihilist?”

You need to read Bernard Lewis. It is truly scandalous that this great thinker is not widely read and admired within the academic world. Here is the link to Lewis’ superb article regarding Muslim rage written fourteen years ago:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

Another superb work is Eric Hoffer's, The True Believer. The militant Muslim is committed to death and destruction for its own sake. Osama doesn’t even possess a coherent vision for the future. Why is this the case? This is because Osama espouses a utopian dream that demands one’s death to be realized. We are hated not merely because of our presence on Saudi soil----but for our very existence! We are the Great Satan that has put to shame the Muslim world. The latter opted for ludditism and a rejection of the modern world some 400-500 years ago. This has resulted in the West becoming the dominant power on this planet. The Muslims are now the second raters, and the Osamas are greatly embittered by this harsh fact of life.

Daniel Drezner wrote:

Here's a thought -- why not just disband the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? At this juncture, its sole purpose for existence seems to be to whitewash the activities of authoritarian regimes, bestowing undeserved legitimacy on these governments. Wouldn't a caucus of democracies be more likely to speak its mind outside of the United Nations system?

It depends on if by “outside of the United Nations system,” you mean a separate non-UN organization such as NATO (which IIRC most of the members are republics). In which case, why not just expand NATO (or a comparable organization) since it pretty much does the heavy lifting anyways and cut out the graft and corruption in the United Nations.

Bostonian wrote:

Can anyone can point to anything good this commission has ever done?

Good question, funny how no one has come up with anything to justify its existence.

Bithead wrote:

In all seriousness; what possible benefit is there in being represented through a an org that is foundationally corrupt, other than to the criminals?

None really except that sometimes it can be useful in providing diplomatic cover for those who publicly pretend to believe in its legitimacy. But if we had a separate organization which was in essence a diplomatic/trade/military alliance that was open to republican governments (which would require some definition) similar to NATO, it might conceivably have some real benefit for common objectives such as combating terrorism, liberalizing trade (members could each receive most favored nation status), and mutual defense.

David -

I hate to comment on these guys without reading them - I've made a note to look up Lewis when I have some time - but I've got to say that I've heard the Islamic envy talk for some time and I don't know what to do with it. Could it be true? Sure - I guess it could. How would I know? But so what? Have you ever been in a fight with someone and said "you're just jealous!" and they said "you know what? You're right. I'm sorry about everything. I'll stop blowing you up."

But that's not your point, I guess. Your point, I suppose, is that they're simply not going to stop blowing us up (because they're nihilists) and that there's no point in a moderate response. Well, following your point to it's logical conclusion there's only defeat or genocide, neither of which seems even remotely acceptable.

I think you're wrong, but I can't be sure. What next, then?

“Your point, I suppose, is that they're simply not going to stop blowing us up (because they're nihilists) and that there's no point in a moderate response. Well, following your point to it's logical conclusion there's only defeat or genocide, neither of which seems even remotely acceptable.

I think you're wrong, but I can't be sure. What next, then?”

Remotely acceptable? You mean that one prefers not to believe that the situation is truly this desperate? Our only valid option is to take the fight to them. A passive attitude is far more dangerous. And yes, a “moderate response” is not possible. We must continue killing and jailing these nihilistic monsters. Did I say it will be easy? I’m sorry but our grand children may still be fighting these lunatics long after we are dead. The Muslim militants number in the millions. Thus, we should indeed feel awed by the challenge.

Who knows, maybe the up-coming additions will co-join the current membership of the Human Rights Commission and we will finally see some unity of action from this group.

Anyone want to lay odds that these anti-US members-with-bad-human-rights-records don't band together to call for a referendum against the US for Iraqi abuses and a push towards a suit in The Hague? Seems like membership is so slanted as to if not pull it off, cause a real international shit-storm just from the attempt.

The UN, for all of its imperfections, still has the charter, structure and weight of a premier international forum. To me the saddest aspect when looking at the records of member states on this commission is that the US, through lack of leadership and disdain to use the UN as focal point for the enactment of our foreign policies, has allowed this type of situation to occur.

Our prideful negligence of the UN may lead to some very embarrassing and painful roles on the international stage over the next few years. The UN is critical to international relationships, policies and global economics. If it’s broken or needs redirection we need to fix it. US foreign policy needs refocus on the UN in center stage.

Bush's Quiet Multilateralism by Fareed Zakaria

The Bush administration has a secret multilateral side. Did you know that it routinely allows an international organization to make crucial decisions affecting the lives of all Americans? That it allows foreigners—unelected bureaucrats in Geneva!—to overrule laws passed by Congress and signed by the president? No, I haven't gone crazy. This is pretty much the approach taken by the administration to the World Trade Organization. Last week a WTO panel ruled that U.S. cotton subsidies violated international trade rules. Washington will almost certainly appeal the finding. But if the past is any guide, it will also almost certainly abide by the WTO's final decision. All of which, in my view, is exactly right.

[...]

The Bush administration accepts the loss of sovereignty on trade, but it rejects it almost everywhere else. For conservatives, trade is somehow different from all other activities. Actually there are lots of areas where an agreement among several countries will produce benefits for all. No one country has an incentive to act alone to tackle environmental problems. But a collective approach would reduce the dangers for all. The same is true of the spread of diseases, which can disrupt countries far away from the places where the virus originates. Again, only a regional or global approach can produce a "win-win" solution.

Even on a national-security issue like global terrorism, a crucial solution involves creating common standards and procedures across the world to search people and goods, share information, shut down bank accounts and make arrests. Otherwise terrorists will simply relocate to the weak point in the system. "In an increasingly globalized world where everything‹people, drugs, money‹travels freely across borders, there is a need for global solutions," says Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy. "But few global solutions are being proposed. This gap between demand and supply is being filled by instability." The Bush administration wants to apply economic solutions to many areas of life. If only it would practice what it preaches.

Waitaminute - Sebastian, so now PBS are nihilist? I thought they were trying to educate children.

Can't say I disagree. This just emphasizes the point that our concept of 'human rights' is essentially a phrase tied to modern Western capitalism. And "The UN Western Capitalism Commission" is absurd on its face.. so scrap it. We already have more appropriate venues to pressure states to adopt these particular moral values.

Isn't France a democracy?

Screw commissions. Let's just build a base on mars and send the rest of the world there and let them fight amongst themselves.

Hell, we can even give the Palestinians their own moon on Jupiter and provide them with all the nuclear missles they need to blow themselves up with one click of the button!

Waitaminute - Sebastian, so now PBS are nihilist? I thought they were trying to educate children.

(Chuckle)
How better to make sure of another generation of nihilists?

Jon wrote:

The UN is critical to international relationships, policies and global economics.

Evidence please.

Membership is not the only thing to evaluate the UNHRC by. The commission yearly adopts between 25-30 resolutions shaming countries for their human rights abuses. This list almost always includes Cuba, Libya and Sudan, even if these countries are members!

Which, in itself, should call into question it's effectiveness.

> goethean: of course, it's all neocons' fault.
> And Paul Wolfowitz constitues the whole
> Administration. And credibility on the world
> stage is determined by Kofi Anan, Chirac, and
> BBC. Now listen, you ignorant brat: I have
> lived under a totalitarian dictatorship (you
> know, a real one: one you can't bitch about the
> way your're bitching about your govt), and
> thanks to Reagan's neocon policies, I don't
> anymore. So screw the UN, and more power to
> Bush, Cheney, and especially Rumsfeld. If you
> don't appreciate your freedom, then what makes
> you deserve it?
>
> Posted by Lenin at May 4, 2004 01:02 PM

I wonder if you would still feel the same love for neo-cons if Reagan's people had felt it necessary to torture you before liberating you.

I wonder if you would still feel the same love for neo-cons if Reagan's people had felt it necessary to torture you before liberating you.

Burn strawman, burn.

No joke there, Thorley.
See also; straws, grasping at