When we were younger, everything seemed very simple. Looking back across our history, it seemed easy to differentiate between the good guys and the bad, the right and the wrong. You could tell that our own choices weren’t always correct, but that we had enough rational individuals who could clearly see when change needed to occur. Seemingly, American history, then, is a bit of a struggle between an acknowledgment of the need to gradually reform one’s own state and a desire to maintain the society we have already built, preserving it for future generations to come.
Strange, then, that when overwhelming evidence becomes available showing the inadequacies of the bedrock institution of internationalism, the United Nations, many who would otherwise propose reform for other issues rush to its defense. It would seem that the childlike desire to defend those who one wishes to believe are forces for good in the world overwhelms the desire to sift and winnow through the facts and reach a reasoned conclusion regarding the efficacy of the world’s most overrated bureaucratic mess.
The United Nations is a guard dog born without teeth, refusing to bark. Founded for the purpose of ending armed conflict by providing a forum for peaceful talks, its aims and aspirations differ greatly from the reality it projects. With an almost nonexistent list of success stories and a slowly growing list of scandals, the U.N. is the least well-equipped body, international or otherwise, to handle the crises facing the world, as it has proven itself time and time again. Ultimately, the U.N. has no problem with actively defending tyrants and insulting the democracies that oppose them in the name of supposed fairness. Indeed, the U.N. seems to be the most conservative force in the world — the status quo of inaction appears to be its modus operandi.
Ask the displaced refugees of Darfur in Sudan how they feel about the U.N. showing up too late, only to do far too little. Ask the survivors of the wanton slaughter in Rwanda, in which around 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu were killed, if they feel the U.N. lived up to its charge as French peacekeepers arrived after the carnage had taken its toll. Ask the children in Iraqi prisons, whose parents had been taken away and tortured on their way to the mass graves for engaging in anti-government activity, if they feel protected by the U.N.’s pitiful excuse for enforcement of its 17 resolutions against Saddam’s tyrannical regime over the past decade.
Tell them that the problem with Saddam Hussein was “manageable,” and that his evils could be “contained.” Tell those children how both permanent and temporary members of the U.N.’s Security Council, including both France and Germany, received bribes from Saddam’s regime through kickbacks from the oil-for-food program to oppose the United States’ intention to enforce the U.N.’s purportedly legal and “binding” resolutions. Tell them how those bribes were for the purpose of maintaining Saddam’s iron grasp over the lives of his people, the eventual dismantling of the sanctions regime designed to weaken his rule, and how he exploited their land’s natural resources, the Iraqi people’s birthright, in order to further oppress their freedoms.
Regardless of the noble pursuits for which the U.N. ought to endeavor, it is by all accounts successful only in failing to serve a purpose. The world deserves better than an ineffective, inefficient bureaucratic sinkhole standing in the way of resolving the issues facing the world in the name of its supposed moral authority. That is, of course, assuming that the U.N. has any moral authority left. If the primary currency of international relations is credibility, the U.N. is deep in debt, with its deficit growing at an inconceivable rate. Member states such as the United States, whose contributions the U.N. depends on for its very existence, are correct to demand results from their massive investments. And when results are antithetical to the very existence of the organization, member states are reasonable to look elsewhere for solutions to problems facing the world.
As one lauds the charitableness of the civilized world in light of the recent tsunami in Asia, it is important to remember the true reason for such charity — a moral obligation to help those who suffer. A starving man cares not about the flag on the jacket of the man giving him food, but where his children are and how he is going to make it through the day.
It is with this truth in mind that the United States, along with many other regional powers including Australia and Japan, are coordinating the largest relief effort in the history of mankind without relying on the “help” of the U.N. Continuing in the American tradition of unrivaled economic aid and generosity, the U.S. government has donated hundreds of millions to the relief effort thus far, with that number likely to eventually reach multiple billions by the time the effort is over. Private citizens have already donated millions as well, with far more still to come. Even in spite of lame charges claiming our contributions “stingy,” the charity of the American people knows few bounds. And so we will work alongside the U.N., but never relying upon them.
This is not an effort to spit in the face of the world, but rather an effort to bring real help to the millions who are suffering in the wake of one of the largest catastrophes in the history of man. Just because we happen to care about what happens with the money we spend does not mean that we are cheap. Just wise.
Particularly when the lives of so many are at stake, why trust an institution of tyrannical apologists so marred with historical failure and inaction? It’s like asking Arthur Anderson to do your accounting. Only, with Arthur Anderson, they can be held accountable for their actions.
Zach Stern ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.
