Today’s Hugo Chavez ‘stemwinder’ at the UN – which saw the Venezuelan Mussolini wannabe calling Bush Satan, replete with sulphurous fumes, while waving around a tome by Noam Chomsky – was certainly a plus for both subjects … Bush, already recovering in the polls, gets a further boost from the thug’s almost comical attack (“Live in New York… it’s Hugo Chavez!”) and the the multi-millionaire marxiste gets another goose to his already copious book sales. [Will there be Chomsky t-shirts a la Che?-ed. Nah, not good-looking enough.]
The big loser was, of course, the United Nations, not the least because Chavez was saluted for his efforts by a hearty round of applause. As I have written numerous times on this blog, I am a supporter of the UN. (That is why I was so outraged by Oil-for-Food.) But now I wonder if it’s salvageable as do, no doubt, many Americans whose tax dollars provide the primary support for what looks increasingly like a social club for sociopaths (Chavez, Ahmadinejad) and kleptocrats (Chirac, Kofi and the whole Oil-for-Food crowd.) What started out as a great liberal idea has turned into an almost perfectly reactionary institution – a common metamorphosis, alas. And after this change, as is also often common, an entirely new class has risen up to protect the institution and its perquisites. The question confronting us now is how to break this pattern.
UPDATE: Claudia Rosett – who, as we know, is a close student of the UN – may have found the answer. [Certainly makes sense to me.-ed. For once we agree.]
The Times reports that Chavez “also said the U.N. ”doesn’t work” in its current system and is ”antidemocratic.” Maybe Hugo could stay around until Sunday, there is a Saturday night TV program just waiting for him to host.
Roger,
I think it is just human nature that organizations end up that way. I am coming to the conclusion that the only cure is first, limit the size of govenment and second, limit the power of private organizations.
The UN was created to prevent great power war, to make sure we didn’t repeat WWI or WWII. To prevent war between Germany and France, to prevent war between the US and Japan…etc.
Now, do our international problems today stem from our issues with Japan, China, or Germany?
Is great power war a concern today?
Reform the UN to challenge the problems of today, not the problems of 1947.
The only reason that I can see for us to remain in the UN is to keep our enemies close and in particular to retain our power to VETO UN Security Council resolutions. Now, without the US (and, say, Japanese) finanicial contributions, certainly the UN vulturocracy would have to tighten its belt — but it could do that and it could proceed to accomplish many pernicious things without the USA’s brakes on it. Otherwise I feel just as Mark Steyn describes himself in “Let’s quit the UN,” Feb. 10, 2003:
“There’s a farmer not far from me, on Route 10 between Lisbon and Littleton, who for over a decade has had painted in huge letters filling the entire side of his barn the slogan ‘US out of UN now’. It never seems to fade, so I figure he re-touches it every few years, which I guess means this isn’t just some passing political bugbear. When I first saw it, circa 1990, I believe I gave a wry chuckle positively Pattenesque in its amused sophistication: to be sure, the UN contains its share of rum coves but no serious person would entertain the notion of US withdrawal. Now I think he’s dead right, and that it’s only smug conventional-wisdom laziness that stops the idea being up for grabs.”
Sam Katzman makes an excellent point. The UN General Assembly gives a bully pulpit to the dictators of the Third World. The Security Council was meant to be a sort of check on it, limiting most of its seats to the great powers. The General Assembly has become a forum through which people such as Arafat achieved respectability, and now it accepts Chavez’s and Ahmadinejad’s rantings because it suits the purposes of so many of its members.
Then again, Chavez did call for a psychiatrist–although, unfortunately, not for himself. I propose that members of the Sanity Squad come to the rescue, and that Chavez brush up on his Hitchcock before he makes movie comparisons.
The UN is beyond salvage.
Epitomizing the political divide in the US,
Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour interviewed Tim Wirth, former Democratic Senator from Colorado (now of the UN Foundation) and Norm Coleman, Senator from Minnesota, chairman of the Senate Permanent SubCom on Investgations which issued a stinging report on the Oil For Food program and who has called from Kofi’s resignation. Coleman has tempered his high decibel comments over the months but he filled a dramatic counterpoint to Wirth’s Democratic hopefulness talk (bordering on an apology) of the desperate need for international comity and cooperation, all part of the Dick Holbrooke/Madeline Albright School of UN adoration. Coleman was stark in his comments disagreeing in his Midwest bluntness to the star gazing silliness of Wirth who obviously must draw his pay and martinis from the UN crowd in NYC.
“The UN General Assembly gives a bully pulpit to the dictators of the Third World.”
I’m afraid we’re guilty of this as well.
Would Ahmadinejad have half as much clout as he does today if we didn’t get all hot and bothered whenever he baits the West by questioning the numbers of the Shoah or talks crap about Israel?
Everytime he baits us, predictably, and everytime we respond in our predictable manner, his international presence is magnified.
Now he asks for permanent seats on the Security Councel for the Ummah, the African Union, and the Non-Aligned Movement… so who is exactly out of touch diplomaticly. We are getting our ass handed to us. All three that he mentioned only happen to hold the locations/orignis of every problem we’re gonna face in the next century: post-colonial nightmares in Africa, militant Islam in the Ummah, and finanicing/support from the Non-Aligned Movement.
BTW, today’s stand-up is part of Hugo’s canvassing for a temporary seat at the UN Security Council.
AP:
Chavez lambasted Washington for trying to block Venezuela’s campaign for a rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council. He said if chosen over U.S.-favorite Guatemala in a secret-ballot U.N. vote next month, Venezuela would be “the voice of the Third World
Hugo’s been promising to spend close to $10 billion towards that goal, in his latest whistle-stop world tour, to use the Beeb’s phrase.
Neo-neocon,
The General Assembly has become a forum through which people such as Arafat achieved respectability
Some time ago I was having a chat about the uselessness (my charge) of the UN with that odd dichotomy, a very successful businessman leftist. He was very adamant in his defense of the UN despite the ready admission that it fails at it’s mission and is populated with far too many member states that are nothing short of vile. Those things he would not dispute. Far too much of evidence.
To summarize, he agreed (or could not effectively contest) that the UN was badly designed to deal with the problems of a world that has changed, was rampant with corruption, was a jobs program for an international beauracracy that rarely accomplished the goals set for it, never accomplished what little it did accomplish with anything resembling efficiency or even moderate effectiveness, and was anti-US.
I was, of course, somewhat baffled by his insistence that it was an important organization worthy of continued support and asked that he summarize why on earth he supported it. He said, quite simply, “It is a forum that allows the small nations of the world to be heard.”
“So”, said I, “The forum is more important than any substance?”
“Yes.”
Forum over substance. Nothing so succinctly defines the UN.
There is no need for the US to pay so high a price for a mere forum. Our fair share of podium, seat maintenance – and translators, of course, so that the good people of the world can hear the rantings of such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahanutjob – would suffice nicely. Call it $10M/yr or so. I think that would do. The $5B or so per year savings could, I think, be put to better use.
I hate that word – bureaucracy. I can never spell the darned thing. Bureau… Bureau… [French bureaucratie : bureau, office; see bureau + -cratie, rule (from Old French. See -cracy).] It isn’t difficult, just impossible.
A Modest Proposal.
Effective Nov. 1, 2006 the diplomatic credentials, visas, etc. of any non US citizen even remotely associated with the United Nations will be revoked. All will be considered persona non grata and subject to immediate arrest and deportation.
Moreover, at precisely 12:01 AM, Nov. 1, 2006,the United Nations World Headquarters will be demolished. By 12:30 AM, bulldozers will be pushing what’s left into Turtle Bay. By the end of the week it will all be gone, and the city of New York can build a nice park.
If foreign criminals, thugs, and dictators want to speak to the world they can damn well do it on their own dime. If they feel compelled to do it at Turtle Bay, they can qualify for entry, buy their own damn tickets, book a hotel, pay a cabbie and talk talk talk.
The park will have a specially situated soap box that I graciously will provide.
Oh, and the park will be named “The Forum.”
Well you know the last time I looked New York is still the United States so why do we put up with them? I think it is because we fear what will take their place.
No one had the right degree of concern about Hitler in the thirties because he seemed too ridiculous; now no one pays attention to MadinJihad because he’s even more so? I’m getting sick of it all.
I now agree with Steyn’s conclusion in FOrNow’s post above.
But the UN being located in the U.S. is a tiny symbol reflecting the relationship that the world has with the U.S.
We are sneered at, detested, and criticized at every turn, but behind whose skirts will they quickly run to hide when the excrement really starts to hit their fans? THAT is the dynamic that we need to change first. We must decide as a nation, and make it clearly known, that we’ll fight to the bloody end to preserve liberty and fight Islamism but will not lend a hand of aid to any that mock us.
Until then, keep the UN where it is. Just to keep an eye on the circus.
Did I mention I’m getting sick of it all?
Old Dad,
There used to be a park like that – or at least a particular street corner. IIRC it was near Times Square. I wanted to suggest that it be offered as a forum (truth be told Chavez and Ahmanutjob sound very much like the folks who used to mount the soap box back in the day). Alas, to the best of my knowledge it is gone (well, the space is not available to that purpose anymore).
Of course much of the other detritus that was in the vacinity is also gone. Oh, those unexpected consequences! Get rid of the crime and suddenly the loons have no soapbox. The prices we pay.
I wonder if any of those who so highly value the “forum” that is the UN have ever given any thought to how valuable (or not) such a forum might become if the detritus infesting the general area of it were, ummm…, gotten rid of. Nah, that would take too much imagination on their part.
According to the State Department, [ http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2004/36416.htm The U.S.-assessed contribution to the UN regular budget in 2003 was $341 million. We gave in other ways and for other programs a total of over $3 billion dollars but not $5 Billion. Take a look at the above web site.
The United Nations is a very dangerous organizaiton, we control it mainly through our financial contributions but if they ever get their own funding like they have been seeking, the United States will be in a terrible position. There are two things that will give them this type of funding and that is the Kyoto Protocols and the Law of the Seas and they have been seeking this for decades for it will eventually give them world control. If the United Nations ever gets either one of these programs in with us signed on it would give them over a Trillion dollars per year. The United Nations could have their own armed forces with that type of money, 10 times bigger than ours. We are talking about a huge Thugocracy the likes the world has never seen, with Hugo Chavez and the Lunatic Ahmadinejad just a part of potpourri of killers and thieves which make up the great majority of the members. This is not a benign organization, its made up of thugs and death cult leaders, we had better be very careful with this bunch.
I didn’t get to see Ahmadinejad this time when he was speaking, did he levitate, did anyone blink, did time stand still like the last time he was here? What a jerk this guy is and to think, Jimmy Carter started him on his career.
Knucklehead,
You make a good point. The Times Square dirt is more valuable since Rudy helped the scum to find other places to stick. It’s not fair to invite the likes of Imanutjob into the Turtle Bay neighborhood. They’ve suffered enough as it is.
I say we move “The Forum” to Berkley where it will be appreciated. I’ll still spring for the soap box.
Interestingly, Chavez seems to have doubts himself as to the usefulness of the UN. hmmmmmmmmm.
There was a time in the past when the American media would shrug off Fat Hugo and the bearded Iranian thuggish office holder .. . but not now.
“Fearless,” feckless Brian Williams whored up
to do an interview with the unshaven one [almost on bended knee] and came off second best giving this hirsute gangster a platform to bash America and GWB. Finally passing the baton to “that Bush lover” David Gregory a chance to report the White House reaction to Hugo the Magnificent ending his report sneeringly reporting that “this administration is downplaying . . . ”
When did these dictators get equal time may I ask?
This page has videos of all the General Assembly speeches.
Educated Venezuelans are very likely feeling avergonzados (Chaves speaks for them) over the Chaves drunk-like ranting at the UN. It would be hard to gage sinse the Venezuelan press is not free to criticize him. Had Chaves been referring to the Colombian president instead of Bush, the Bush WH would be the middle of a regional crisis right now.
My question is where are the democrats in all this? Is outrage really dead?
Here is a perfect opportunity to appear above partisan bickering and defend the president against an unwarranted attack. Same with the Bush assassination movie.
71% of Americans said they believed there is a devil in 2004. Why not a simple statement? Our president is not el Diablo. Signed – Pelosi.
Could it be that the majority (over 71%) of democrats believe that Bush is a Hitler? And a statement would mean certain confrontation with the base? The silence can only mean that the answer is yes to both. All recent displays of outrage over the pope could also mean that democrats may feel the air is outrage saturated. I cant think of a good reason why they would be silent.
Realclearpolitics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ has a link to
an article in the WP by one Dan Froomkin.
The article is based on all that the commenters
here find surreal. And that is he takes the
attendees at the UN as serious people. All of the
major dailies run a similar theme. The US and Bush are not looked on favorably. As if that means that we are wrong.
Taking that circus on the East Side of Manhatten seriously is the height of stupidity. Are we to
place the future of the world in the hands of
that gang of (words fail me here)??? Apparently the bylined writers of our major dailies think so.
I cannot forsee the end of the UN. Nor a situation where the US leaves it. As has been pointed out above, we need to have our veto or the threat of our veto, as a tool to rein in
the insanity. Without us, the amount of damage
the UN is capable of is unlimited. President of the World Kofi or his successor would bring us
into an era of chaos. The lunatics would truly
be running the asylum.
I agree with Lem that this is a fine opportunity for the American media, and, the American political system – bipartisanism- to defend not just Bush, but the American principles of free political expression and tempered political comment. Let’s count how many editorials speak out tomorrow against these indecent expressions.
One will not read it from the Frank Richs, Paul Krugmans (NY Times) or EJ Dionnes (WashPost) of the press as these voices of liberal extremism see Bush as evil, but there is high degree of indecent insult in the comments of Chavez and that bearded Iranian thug [whose name
I can not spell and take no pleasure in attempting].
In another era we had a different enemy. I remember when Kruschev pounded the table with his shoe at the U.N.
But, you know what? at least that enemy wanted to see Disneyland!
But, today?
Chavez would build his own version of Disneyland just to have the biggest one and fill it with propaganda.
Ahmadinejad sees no value at all in the imagination or the freeing gift of fantasy. To him Disneyland could only be the work of the devil.
Kruschev scared me enough.
Which of the Kossites writes speeches for Chavez? Who at DU writes for Ahmadinejad?
The demonization of George Bush, who after all had the temerity to lead the US in an agressive defense of its homeland, is now warmly applauded by an audience made up primarily of objects of US charity for the last 60 years.
In this way the audience channels the cheering section of nearly one-third of our country.
If it weren’t so tragic, it would be hilarious.
Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain would have had a field day. Mark Steyn might.
Come on, this is just the annual geopolitical catwalk of state leaders before the General Assembly.
The only real difference, between this and a fashion show, is that in the case of the fashion show, the models usually look better, but often the dresses, like UN politics, are for people from another world.
I wonder how long it will be before the moonbat sites start wondering if somehow Karl Rove got Ahmadwhatever, Chavez, and Mugabe on his payroll? Maybe he was secretly in Cuba last weekend passing out cash…
And with gas prices dropping just in time for the November elections? One questions the timing…
The second selection in Hugo’s Book Club:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743297911/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4923081-5733433#reader-link
Oops, bad link. That’s Peace Mom, by Cindy Sheehan.
Chavez embarrassing rant at the UN also betrays his desire to replace a dying Castro. His inability to be as loquacious as Castro however is insufficient to deter him and so he goes over the top. It’s similar to when a comedian bombs, they decide to bomb so bad sometimes it gets a laugh. Regrettably, the real explosive issue at the UN these days is not the humorous kind.
Charlie Rangle just chewed Chavez out. Chavez left the US early. Thanks Charlie for protecting the office, and thanks Hugo for helping to reunite our country.
ìI am a supporter of the UN. (That is why I was so outraged by Oil-for-Food.) … But now I wonder if it’s salvageable as do, no doubt, many Americans whose tax dollars provide the primary support for what looks increasingly like a social club for… kleptocrats (Chirac, Kofi and the whole Oil-for-Food crowd.)î
We are in good company, Simon. U.S. companies made up ìfor 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil – more than the rest of the world put together.î (Guardian Unlimited)
Remember Kofi’s right hand man, Mark Malloch Brown?
Here’s a quote from the lad whereby he claimed the UN’s work is a secret to that vast Red State, conservative middle America:
“But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by ìstealthî diplomacy: the UNís role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.”
Maybe Brown would like all of yesterday’s speeches and the rabid reactions of the delegates to be kept secret.
Rising to the Challenge in Asia: A Study of Financial Markets : Pakistan Rising to the Challenge in Asia: A Study of Financial Markets : Pakistan.