The Christian Science Monitor is an excellent paper that publishes fantastic stories and thought-provoking essays. Even the ones I disagree with on content, I usually respect the intellectual rigor. So I was disappointed to read this opinion piece by Cathryn Prince applauding the appointment of John Bolton as the US' top diplomat to the United Nations.
According to her, the [t]ough-talking Bolton: just what the UN needs. She rightly applauds Bolton for his role in getting the UN General Assembly to scrap the odious 'Zionism is racism' resolution.
The byline claims that Prince covered the UN for The Monitor during the mid-90s. Yet even in opinion columns, shouldn't journalists try to dispel lazy pre-conceived notions rather than perpetuating them?
For example, she spews: As the world has witnessed, and is reminded vividly in the recent movie "Hotel Rwanda," UN peacekeepers are useless in preventing the slaughter of innocents.
UN peacekeepers were worthless in preventing the slaughter of innocents because UN Security Council members patently refused to give them the mandate, the authority, to prevent the slaughter of innocents. This wasn't a casual omission. The UN peacekeeping mission asked the Security Council for that authority; the Council's member states not only refused, but slashed the force's numbers by 90%. How any so-called responsible journalist can perpetuate such a borderline defamatory half-truth is beyond me.
Prince writes casually about the UN's "ineptitude" in Darfur today as well in Rwanda and Srebenica of a decade ago. She does so without bothering to explain why. As a journalist, surely she knows that the inability of the United Nations to act in those place was less a failure of the UN as an institution, but rather a failure of the UN's member states. The UN didn't act because powerful member states didn't want the UN to act. That's the way the organization was designed to work by its founders, including the United States.
Prince seems to want a more powerful UN, which would be more effective in addressing the world's worst atrocities. Does she really think Bolton would push for the UN to have enough authority to act effectively? The Bush administration wants a UN that's effective only to the extent that it's pliable to Washington's interests. Anything more would necessarily result in [insert ominous music] ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Unlike previous administrations, the Bush administration doesn't pretend otherwise.
Where the Secretary-General actually does have authority, basically in the internal workings of the UN, Kofi Annan HAS taken action. The oil-for-food scandal is under investigation. Following the UN peacekeepers' sex scandals, new rules for peacekeeping missions were implemented. Imagine how much better were things if the Bush administration cleaned up its messes like that.
Annan can not force President Bush to support this action or President Chirac to support that action. The secretary-general called for a strong Security Council resolution and demanded action to deal with the mass crimes against humanity in Darfur. He even convened an emergency session of the Security Council to deal with Darfur.
He demanded a resolution, but he can't force one through. He called for action, but he can't decree it. He doesn't have the authority.
Right-wing UN critics in the US refuse to acknowledge that the secretary-general is not the president of the world. He is not the commander-in-chief of the world's armies. He has executive authority only over the UN's internal bureaucracy, not over world politics. Much like the Pope, his authority is primarily a moral authority.
Reform to create a truly effective UN would scrap the veto held by permanent members of the Security Council. It was that veto that prevented effective UN action in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. Does Prince really think John Bolton will push for that, however proudly undiplomatic he may be?
Cathryn Prince speaks of Bolton's 'moral courage.' How about the moral courage to bring criminals against humanity to justice, such as the Darfur genociders? Such moral courage could be achieved by US support for the work of the International Criminal Court. Does Prince really think that 'morally courageous' John Bolton will push for that?
The UN's commission on human rights contains such sterling candidates for a rights' watchdog as Congo-Brazzaville, Cuba, Eritrea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Conservatives have cited the membership as an example of the sham known as the UN. Annan has called for reforming this commission but he can't wave a magic wand and make it happen. Does Prince really think Bolton will fight to embolden a human rights' commission that might subsequently castigate the United States over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
To Bolton and his allies, the UN is useful only as a whipping boy, a scapegoat to blame when they can't get everything they want. Bolton may score political points by demanding 'accountability' of the UN and its secretary-general. But demanding accountabilty without authority is a far cry from 'moral courage.' In fact, it's little more than meaningless demagoguery.
No comments:
Post a Comment