Comments on: Expel North Korea

By: Scott Davison

Scott Davison — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:52:25 +0000

How about this- move the UN to North Korea! -A bonfire of the inanities!

When they solve that issue they can then relocate their headquarters to Sudan.

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:48:55 +0000

James:

The fundamental purpose of the UN is to provide a place where Nations, even bitter enemies, can come and talk.

Au contraire, the fundamental purpose of the UN is to hold conferences, dine well and stay at the best hotels.

The questions that immediately come to my mind are “when would the delegation to plead with NK to rejoin the UN arrive in Pyongyang?” and “what concessions would they be willing to make to get NK back in?” I suspect the answers are “before the vote” and “lots.”

By: Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat

Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:20:39 +0000

A UN policy proposal that would be unambiguious, moral, effective and inexpensive.

It hasn’t a prayer.

By: JohnAnnArbor

JohnAnnArbor — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:12:26 +0000

What’s bizarre about North Korea’s membership in the first place is that it is technically at war with the UN as represented by the United Nations Command (Korea)!

By: submandave

submandave — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:02:56 +0000

I agree, although for reasons I point out I don't think it will happen.

By: T. O'Connor in NY

T. O'Connor in NY — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:44:28 +0000

Douglas, remembering JFK’s opening lines in the 1940 thesis “Why England Slept”, the history – not to mention human nature – suggests that the more things change the more they stay the same.

“But it takes time to change men’s minds, and it takes violent shocks to change an entire nation’s psychology. The experience of the United States is ample evidence of this. In spite of the events of the last few years, and in spite of the war then waging in Europe, the Congress this winter cut our Naval appropriation 500 million dollars, from $1,300,000,000 to $800,000,000. Yet in May, due to the shock of the Blitzkrieg, Congress rushed through appropriations of $5,000,000,000 which were cheerfully supported by the entire nation.”

By: Avner

Avner — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:36:48 +0000

Hi Claudia,

I understand your argument re the UN. Bet seriously, if this was brought before them, wouldn’t they then turn around and expell Israel first (the “true” pariah nation)? It will be easier for the tyrants, despots, oligarchs and appeasers to rationalize that to themselves to rationalize that to themselves. Or at least as easy.

Then again, would it make a difference?

By: Fred Beloit

Fred Beloit — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:55:16 +0000

Very interesting idea, kick them out of the UN. On the other hand, why do them any favors?

By: Richard Cook

Richard Cook — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:23:27 +0000

Of course the ‘out’ for the UN – and the DPRK – is that, according to Ms. Rosett’s quotation, a member “may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly”. I assume this means a vote of the whole. This maneuver would serve a double-bonus for the US however. Who doubts the assemblage will refuse to remove the NoKors? This, especially following Mr. Chavez’s recent appearance, would serve to alert an increasing number of Americans exactly what form the world body has assumed. [BTW: Wouldn't any such move absolutley have to happen before the new South Korean General Secretary assumes the office? Under his leadership it would appear too self-interested. Or am I wrong?]

By: James

James — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:11:12 +0000

I disagree. The fundimental purpsoe of the UN is to provide a place where Nations, even bitter enemies, can come and talk. This is in the hope, however small, that conversation could avoid greater issues in the future.