H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold recently spoke at Harvard University regarding the UN and its role in fueling global chaos.
"…Gold summed up the situation, “In 1945, the real purpose of the UN was based on the idea of nipping aggression in the bud.* But what if the UN cannot distinguish between aggressor and victim?”* This was certainly the case in Rwanda.* General Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian, warned the Director of UN Peacekeeping Operations (none other than Kofi Annan) that the Hutus were planning an extermination of Tutsis.* Dallaire indicated that he knew where the weapons depot was situated and that his troops (who were already on the ground) could destroy the weapons and thereby avert a genocide.* Tragically, Dallaire’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Annan’s deputy, Iqbal Riza, ordered Dallaire not to intervene.* The UN peacekeepers were to remain impartial.* Because of the inaction of Riza (and by extension Annan) 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered.*** In an interview with PBS, Riza dismissed the tragedy.* “Look, since the 1960s, there have been cycles of violence – Tutsis against Hutus, Hutus against Tutsis.* I’m sorry to put it so cynically.”* Gold said this demonstrated the UN’s “inability to identify evil.”
"…Several times throughout the talk Gold stated that the UN had “lost its moral compass.”* So how did the UN lose its moral compass?*** Gold argued that today’s UN had “no bar for admission.”* In the halcyon days of 1945, in order to be admitted to the UN, a nation state had to have made a formal declaration of war on an Axis Power.* The original members of the UN shared common values.* This dissipated after membership increased, due in part decolonization in the 1960s.* Most of these decolonized states were authoritarian and not democratic in their rule, and thus individual human rights meant an end to their hold on power at home.*** Many of these states ending up siding with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.* Thus the United States and other democratic states lost their influence in the General Assembly.* According to Gold, the strength of the General Assembly, ironically enough, was increased by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson as a means to bypass the UN Security Council.* Since the Soviet Union would have vetoed any action against the aggressive actions of North Korea, Acheson went to the General Assembly for support which he received.* Although General Assembly resolutions may have no force in law they are viewed* as a sign of* legitimacy.* But again the General Assembly of 2004 is not the General Assembly of 1950.* In this day and age, the General Assembly is a democratic forum for nations that do not practice democracy at home.
So what is the United States to do?* Should the United States withdraw from the UN?* Should the UN be dismantled altogether?* Gold says no on both counts.* He argues that the United States needs to “expend political capital” and “develop a coalition outside the UN.”* Gold praised the efforts of both the Clinton and current Bush Administration in organizing the Community of Democracies.* However, the Community of Democracies is not intended to supplant the UN but rather to potentially form a bloc within the UN to counteract the power of the Nonaligned Movement.* Gold, however, believes that this Community of Democracies must gain power outside the UN before gaining it from within.* Indeed, one can argue that France and Germany are democratic countries that have been overtly hostile to the United States, especially with regard to Iraq.* But Gold argues that democratic values alone are not sufficient.** He writes:
“Recent events have demonstrated that the most effective guarantor of world order has been the emergence of new coalitions that are bound together by shared democratic values and by a common perception of the threats they all face together…Remember, the UN was founded as a coalition of allies.** By definition, allies don’t get confused about who is the enemy, about who is the aggressor and who is the defender.** Alliances stand for shared principles.** When Roosevelt and Churchill met on the HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 and issued the Atlantic Charter, they had few doubts about what they stood for…”
intellectualconservative.com/article4037.html
"…Gold summed up the situation, “In 1945, the real purpose of the UN was based on the idea of nipping aggression in the bud.* But what if the UN cannot distinguish between aggressor and victim?”* This was certainly the case in Rwanda.* General Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian, warned the Director of UN Peacekeeping Operations (none other than Kofi Annan) that the Hutus were planning an extermination of Tutsis.* Dallaire indicated that he knew where the weapons depot was situated and that his troops (who were already on the ground) could destroy the weapons and thereby avert a genocide.* Tragically, Dallaire’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Annan’s deputy, Iqbal Riza, ordered Dallaire not to intervene.* The UN peacekeepers were to remain impartial.* Because of the inaction of Riza (and by extension Annan) 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered.*** In an interview with PBS, Riza dismissed the tragedy.* “Look, since the 1960s, there have been cycles of violence – Tutsis against Hutus, Hutus against Tutsis.* I’m sorry to put it so cynically.”* Gold said this demonstrated the UN’s “inability to identify evil.”
"…Several times throughout the talk Gold stated that the UN had “lost its moral compass.”* So how did the UN lose its moral compass?*** Gold argued that today’s UN had “no bar for admission.”* In the halcyon days of 1945, in order to be admitted to the UN, a nation state had to have made a formal declaration of war on an Axis Power.* The original members of the UN shared common values.* This dissipated after membership increased, due in part decolonization in the 1960s.* Most of these decolonized states were authoritarian and not democratic in their rule, and thus individual human rights meant an end to their hold on power at home.*** Many of these states ending up siding with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.* Thus the United States and other democratic states lost their influence in the General Assembly.* According to Gold, the strength of the General Assembly, ironically enough, was increased by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson as a means to bypass the UN Security Council.* Since the Soviet Union would have vetoed any action against the aggressive actions of North Korea, Acheson went to the General Assembly for support which he received.* Although General Assembly resolutions may have no force in law they are viewed* as a sign of* legitimacy.* But again the General Assembly of 2004 is not the General Assembly of 1950.* In this day and age, the General Assembly is a democratic forum for nations that do not practice democracy at home.
So what is the United States to do?* Should the United States withdraw from the UN?* Should the UN be dismantled altogether?* Gold says no on both counts.* He argues that the United States needs to “expend political capital” and “develop a coalition outside the UN.”* Gold praised the efforts of both the Clinton and current Bush Administration in organizing the Community of Democracies.* However, the Community of Democracies is not intended to supplant the UN but rather to potentially form a bloc within the UN to counteract the power of the Nonaligned Movement.* Gold, however, believes that this Community of Democracies must gain power outside the UN before gaining it from within.* Indeed, one can argue that France and Germany are democratic countries that have been overtly hostile to the United States, especially with regard to Iraq.* But Gold argues that democratic values alone are not sufficient.** He writes:
“Recent events have demonstrated that the most effective guarantor of world order has been the emergence of new coalitions that are bound together by shared democratic values and by a common perception of the threats they all face together…Remember, the UN was founded as a coalition of allies.** By definition, allies don’t get confused about who is the enemy, about who is the aggressor and who is the defender.** Alliances stand for shared principles.** When Roosevelt and Churchill met on the HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 and issued the Atlantic Charter, they had few doubts about what they stood for…”
intellectualconservative.com/article4037.html