It’s become a cliché by now, but I have never experienced an election quite like this. There are a lot of good (and bad) reasons to elect a candidate for office, but the swings in the polls seem to have nothing to do with reason. People are adamantly – even violently – proclaiming allegiance to certain candidates in the same way I saw a kid at Wal-Mart suddenly lurch out of his mom’s shopping cart, grab a toy off the shelf, and insist that mom buy it for him. When pressed why, he clutched the item to his chest and simply screamed, I NEED IT! After which point, it became impossible – and embarrassing – for his poor mother to initiate a rational discussion about the virtues of said toy. This is not uncommon behavior for a five year old, but it seems highly unusual for adults who are supposed to be actively engaged in the process of choosing the leaders of the free world.
Somewhere along the line, we forgot to grow up.
This was brought home – literally – the other night as I attended a debate between four candidates for Congress in my neighborhood in California’s Third Congressional District.
There are issues over which good people can disagree – the war in Iraq being an obvious example. I don’t think our current president has done a stellar job of conveying to the American people why we invaded Iraq to begin with and he’s downright dismal at justifying why we are still there today. That’s not to say there aren’t good reasons for our troops to remain in the region. Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate the arguments against a preemptive strike as well as some arguments for a timely withdrawal.
So, yes – there are some perspectives best gleaned from a vigorous, fervent debate. And then there are others I simply can’t wrap my head around – like the unbelievable deference granted the UN by candidate Bill Durston. I don’t know what this man’s been smoking, but anyone who can actually look a crowd in the eye and tell them the UN can be instrumental in resolving global conflicts has clearly separated him or herself from reality for far too long. Of course he did say he would repeal No Child Left Behind because the program sought to “cram facts” in kid’s heads – especially math and English facts. Now if there’s one thing you don’t want your education system to do, it’s cram facts into student’s heads. I suppose it would be better if we fed them tales about the UN riding into town on a white unicorn to quell a row between a gossamer-clad princess and her wicked stepsister.
For those who still like facts, the UN Security Council spends the bulk of its resources alternately legitimizing sociopathic dictators and then threatening them with resolution after meaningless resolution, after which it issues an occasional “I really mean it this time,” followed by a stern, “why I oughtta…,” and possibly an unenforceable “peacekeeping mandate” or two. In the time it takes to exhaust this turgid diplomatic enterprise, several hundred thousand people will have been mercilessly massacred. But I guess those are just superfluous facts, needlessly crammed in to an otherwise happy story.
Once a committee is assigned to make an official determination of genocide, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) then takes endless months to construct a workable refugee camp, at which men spend the day getting drunk, as women tend to their families, fetch firewood, and consider themselves lucky if they arrive home in the evening without being gang-raped. All to remedy a slaughter that could have been prevented – not with documents, but with appropriately trained and equipped troops.
When not in the business of not preventing genocide, members of the UNHRC go about their regular business of patting each other on the back for their success in implementing the latest round of resolutions. On September 12, 2008, for example, the High Commissioner reported on the alleged progress of several nations in the adoption of Human Rights Council Resolution 7/19 entitled, “Combating the Defamation of Religions.”
Don’t you just know this is going to be good.
The Islamic Republic of Iran concluded (with a straight face, no doubt) “that the right to freedom of expression should be exercised with the responsibilities and limitations prescribed by law and that the international community should initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and cultural diversity.” Sure. I guess that’s what Ahmadinejad meant when he said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Or what Iran’s Majlis meant on September 9, 2008 (ironically, the day after the UNHRC report was issued) when they ratified a bill under which any Muslim who converts to another religion would be put to death, with no possibility of pardon.
Sounds like the promotion of a “culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights” to me. Now, one would think the Supreme Commander High Commissioner of Human Rights might have something to say about the apparent discrepancy between Iran’s glowing compliance report and its subsequent actions. And she did:
“Some countries have specific laws against the defamation of religion. Of the countries that reported on such laws, there does not appear to be a common understanding of what is considered defamation of religion.”
Huh? To say “there does not appear to be a common understanding” when Iran explicitly considers “defamation of religion” to mean converting from Islam and then punishing such conversion by death is a gross understatement that makes a mockery of human rights. Yet, our candidate Bill Durston has the temerity to accuse the Bush Administration of “working harder than the leaders of any other country to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the UN.” As I said earlier, Mr. Bush is not exactly my favorite statesman. Still, Bill, that’s quite a statement. Especially when you have leaders of other countries, like Iran, who can’t chop off heads fast enough to undermine the UN’s so-called “credibility and effectiveness.” Oh well. They were probably just heads filled with useless facts anyway.
The UN as a global peacekeeping entity is a farce. And I say this as one who has the highest respect for Eleanor Roosevelt, Charles Malik, Jacques Maritain, and Rene Cassin, who were instrumental in drafting the International Declaration of Human Rights following the atrocities of World War II. Their efforts were sincere and meaningful. But the UN, particularly the Human Rights Council, has been co-opted by self-righteous elitists who flaunt their protection of human rights documents, protocol, resolutions, and edicts. It makes them feel good about their lofty titles and lavish parties. But protecting real people in real conflicts? That’s so messy.
So, Dr. Durston, where was the UN when Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge murdered two million Cambodians? (For that matter, where was the US, Mr. Carter? Oh yes, making a swift withdrawal from Vietnam and helping the Khmer Rouge keep its seat on that most illustrious of all institutions, the UN.) Where was the UN in Rwanda? In Bosnia-Herzegovina? In Somalia? In Sierra Leone? In Liberia? In the Sudan?
No doubt furiously drafting documents and hoping that the problem would simply vanish. And eventually the problem did. The effective implementation of a reckless policy of unilateral diplomacy has cost more than five million lives since 1948. Still, Dr. Durston proudly states that he “will work toward making the UN an effective world government.”
Frankly, Dr. Bill, I’d like to keep my head, thank you. Crammed with facts and all.
“For those who still like facts, the UN Security Council spends the bulk of its resources alternately legitimizing sociopathic dictators and then threatening them with resolution after meaningless resolution, after which it issues an occasional “I really mean it this time,” followed by a stern, “why I oughtta…,” and possibly an unenforceable “peacekeeping mandate” or two. In the time it takes to exhaust this turgid diplomatic enterprise, several hundred thousand people will have been mercilessly massacred”
Which is absolutely nothing like what the United States’ government has done in Iraq, Pakistan, the Filipines, Indonesia/East Timor, Chile, etc.
But I forget, we didn’t install dictators in those countries, they only became dictators when they stopped doing what we told them.
The UN is far far far from perfect, certainly, but there has not been an armed conflict between two word powers since its inception. Considering such conflicts killed more people in the twentieth-century than the plague did in the Dark Ages, can you drop the outrage and at least admit that your distrust of the UN is inspired more by Left Behind than The Prince?