When in Doubt, Blame the UN

Fred Hiatt's descend into the worst kind of wingnutty foreign policy continues as we learn that we should blame the U.N. for the fact that SLORC is horrible and people are dying in Darfur. As Michael Cohen points out, this is senseless, the U.N.'s not a world government and it can't intervene anywhere unless member states want to. On Darfur, as he says, when Ban Ki-Moon said the U.N. needed to send more helicopters to Sudan, nobody ponied up the choppers.

But the U.N.-bashers who want to blame the organization for "inaction" on these points are the last in line for proposals to give the U.N. more money, and more institutional capacity. It's all absurd -- the idea that the U.N. Charter is the only thing standing between the world and an efficacious intervention in Sudan or Burma doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. On Burma, meanwhile, it's worth asking what Hiatt even thinks should have been done -- the junta is behaving horribly, but it's not like we'd be able to invade the country, overthrow the government, and then stand up a new regime all in time to distributive disaster relief in a timely manner.

Comments

but it's not like we'd be able to invade the country, overthrow the government, and then stand up a new regime all in time to distributive disaster relief in a timely manner.

Why would we have to "stand up a new regime" in order to distribute disaster relief in a timely manner?

We march (sail) in, distribute the necessary aid, and say to the Burmese military that is causing the problem: we will kill you if you take any actions to oppose us.

But for isolationists like Matthew, saving a million people from dying is a bad idea if those people are in a foreign country and we have to threaten force.

Posted by Al | May 12, 2008 4:48 PM

"We march (sail) in, distribute the necessary aid, and say to the Burmese military that is causing the problem: we will kill you if you take any actions to oppose us."

You and what army, Al?

Posted by Dan F. | May 12, 2008 4:52 PM

Dear Esteemed Sir,

I am employed by a respected media organization in Washington, US of A, and I have many important contacts in the military and weapons manufacturing industries. Your name was given to me by a valued contact who says you are Very Serious Liberal Hawk and I believe you are the right person to help poor starving children and acquire many blessings of wealth and prosperity and the admiration of women.

There are many thousands of children in country called [redacted] who want peace and freedom and Big Macs and have collected 25 Million USD as part of Save Us From Bad People Fund. They want to give you this money in exchange for saving them from bad people.

But first your Congress must send a check for 10 Billion USD to Pentagon to build 5 F22s. [redacted] has an Air Force with two prop planes and Lear Jet belonging to Very Bad Dictator's Wife and they are very afraid of F22. If Congress sends check then Very Bad Dictator will run away and grateful children will be saved from bad people and will wire 25 Million to you no later than Tuesday.

Most Humbly Yours,
MR. Fred Hiatt
Washington, US of A

Posted by Fred Hiatt | May 12, 2008 4:54 PM

The UN is useless for all the reasons Matt points out. It can only work if all the member states contribute and make it work. It allows loser countries to punch above their weight on the international scene and does nothing to stop cold blooded killers that hide behind their soveriegnty (Bosnia, Sudan, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Burma, N. Korea, etc.) They spend an inordinate amount of time passing useless resolutions condemning Israel as an "apartheid" state while meanwhile most Muslim countries function as de facto apartheid states.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 12, 2008 4:57 PM

Sorry Al, I think their answer will be something along the lines of "OK, over both our dead bodies, those of our soldiers, and those of a good chunk of the populaation you're trying to save." But he's not the only one - Time featured an article with the same idea. Less writers with hard-ons for someone else killing foreign people, please. Even for a nominally good cause

Posted by JohnTh | May 12, 2008 5:01 PM

Fred Hiatt:

"When a parent abuses or neglects a child, government steps in to offer protection. But who steps in when government abuses or neglects its people?"

Nobody. Those people are screwed. To me Peaceniks often exhibit a very rightwing conservative "tough shit, thems the breaks" kind of attitude to foreigners. The Burmese made the mistake of not being born in the US where they could cry about liberal hawk warmongers.

I agree with Matt that righwingers hobble the UN and international institutions, so most Republicans should have no say in the matter. But if a neighbor was abusing their kid, would you just ignore it? None of your business?

Posted by Peter K. | May 12, 2008 5:02 PM

"But if a neighbor was abusing their kid, would you just ignore it? None of your business?"

No, it's far better to blow your neighbor's house and entire family to smithereens. It may not help the kids, but at least you'll feel manly.

Posted by Dan F. | May 12, 2008 5:08 PM

why not? regime change and disaster relief is what this administration does best!

Posted by soggy | May 12, 2008 5:11 PM

why not? regime change and disaster relief is what this administration does best!

Posted by soggy | May 12, 2008 5:12 PM

why not? regime change and disaster relief is what this administration does best!

Posted by soggy | May 12, 2008 5:12 PM

I must have missed, three years ago, Fred Hiatt's column blaming the UN for not invading the United States to help Hurricane Katrina's victims in New Orleans.

Posted by Carlos | May 12, 2008 5:14 PM

The UN is weak, therefore we must weaken it further.

Posted by Beau | May 12, 2008 5:15 PM

Others have beat me to it, but it strikes me as truly hilarious that Al and/or Hiatt seem to think the involvement of the Bush Administration --- the fine folks who brought you the hideous aftermath of Hurricane Katrina --- would somehow constitute a massive *improvement* over the military goons in charge of Burma in the department of disaster relief. Haha, tell that to NOLA.

Also, the third word of Matt's post should be "descent," not "descend."

Posted by MY Strikes Again | May 12, 2008 5:23 PM

No, it's far better to blow your neighbor's house and entire family to smithereens. It may not help the kids, but at least you'll feel manly.

No, if the parent is violent, you get a policeman to accompany children services. Must be nice to be so callous. Who are you going to blame once Bush is out of office in a few months?

Posted by Peter K. | May 12, 2008 5:32 PM

MY Strikes Again - I don't know. We (the US) seemed to have done a reasonable job in Banda Acech. It took the UN five(?) days to get a team on the ground to see if there was even a disaster and how they could help.

I think the lesson learned is that if you have a local and sovereign state government that are so corrupt and useless that they can't help themselves then you are going to be in trouble.

Keep in mind that when you bash the federal government you are bashing the organization that is managing your Social Security and the guys that many people want to provide your health care.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 12, 2008 5:32 PM

No, the federal government is not some monolithic creature. I am bashing FEMA, which Bush obviously doesn't care at all about, appointing some idiot with prior [bad] experience in rodeo organizing or something.

I believe the SSA is headed up by competent people, and any future health care organization would be as well, particularly if we elect Democrats. Indeed, the inability (or desire) to appoint incompetent cronies or irrational ideologues to important positions (Brownie, Gonzales, Harriet Miers, Bolton, Feith, etc etc) is a decent-sized reason I support the Democratic party and will support any Democratic Presidential candidate. Even if not perfect, no Dem-appointed AG will be as risible as Gonzo, etc etc

Posted by MY Strikes Again | May 12, 2008 5:38 PM

Who are you going to blame once Bush is out of office in a few months?

I'm going to say that the answer is... Bush.

Posted by Al | May 12, 2008 5:41 PM

FYI: The SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) changed its name to the SPDC (State Peace and Development Council) in 1997.

And while we are well within our rights to choose to honor the colonial masters' mishearing (Burma) over the brutal thugs' revanchist nomenclature, there isn't any good reason to use an outdated name that's no longer used by either supporters or opponents of the regime.

Posted by reid and write | May 12, 2008 5:44 PM

Peter K --

That's the old liberal ideal, isn't it? -- International institutions that can be like a police force who protects our globally shared values of human rights. Sure, I think that's an ideal worth working toward.

But we don't live in that world yet. We live in a nice, gated neighborhood on the edge of a troubled big city. The city government means well, but it's generally weak and dysfunctional and it has some unsavory, corrupt factions who are more likely to beat someone down for the mob than enforce high-minded laws in the rougher parts of town.

In this situation, the city government can help a little bit on the margins. But there aren't any cops and there aren't any child services for them to accompany. Even if there were, they'd have to start a gang war and kill half the kids just to get in the front door.

Liberal hawks tend to present the false dichotomy of "law enforcement" or "doing nothing" in these situations. But the real options are vigilante violence or social work. Social work requires cooperation from the neighborhood to accomplish anything, but without cooperation from the neighbors the vigilantes are going to accomplish very little at a much higher cost and kill a lot of people in the process.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 12, 2008 6:25 PM

Like SLORC, which has opportunistically used the cyclone to ram through constitutionally changes on the backs of dead Burmese, Hiatt is using the blood of the poor Burmese to opportunistically bash the UN. Both are morally bankrupt.

Posted by blah | May 12, 2008 6:49 PM

Like SLORC, which has opportunistically used the cyclone to ram through constitutionally changes on the backs of dead Burmese, Hiatt is using the blood of the poor Burmese to opportunistically bash the UN. Both are morally bankrupt.

What he said.

When people currently say they want to invade another country militarily which has a government who would resist militarily, and the invasion-happy people say the invasion would be to help -- then it isn't to help, it is to rule.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 12, 2008 7:06 PM

I think the lesson learned is that if you have a local and sovereign state government that are so corrupt and useless that they can't help themselves then you are going to be in trouble.

*Katrina* cough *Bush* cough *heckuva job Brownie* cough cough....

Posted by Stefan | May 12, 2008 7:13 PM

As a rightwing nutcase and habitual warmonger, even I can see significant drawbacks and little upside to an invasion of Burma.

However, we could airdrop aid and, if opposed, crush their air force and air defenses.

Posted by John Bragg | May 12, 2008 7:19 PM

It was Bernard Kouchner who started Doctors without Borders. But it's one thing to, as a private person and a doctor, "invade" another country, ignoring borders to help people. It's entirely another thing if a government does it by military force. Kouchner is naive.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 12, 2008 7:23 PM

I think Matt has this right, the UN finds itself in a classic double-bind:

It is supposed to stop the bloodshed in Darfur and other places, but it's not supposed to do anything that threatens the sovereignty of its member states. Ergo, the UN is to blame for failing to force its member nations to commit to things they don't want to commit to...like sending troops to Darfur.

What's most interesting is that the very people who make the UN's missions impossible are the ones who turn around and blame the UN. We call that "Republican Politics." Been that way as long as I've been alive...

Posted by west coast | May 12, 2008 7:48 PM

Matt--much of the criticism of the UN is hypocritical, and it's true that the UN is not any kind of world government or policeman. But if the UN doesn't like the criticism, maybe it should stop playing world-policeman make-believe by adopting useless resolutions like the one Hiatt was talking about.

Posted by Claudius | May 12, 2008 7:53 PM

We do a heckuva job running our country. This clearly gives us the moral right - nay, duty - to invade all countries and run them. Come, take up the White Man's Burden, just as Fred Hiatt has.

Liberal internationalism backed up with bayonets -- isn't that the definition of "neoconservatism?" Which is why most neocons are former Trotskyites.

But remember, if we don't invade Burma they will invade Poland next year! And then you'll all be left with "peace in our time" egg on your faces.

Posted by jim | May 12, 2008 8:05 PM

And if we don't invade Burma, we'll invade Poland!

Reminds me of Dean Martin's line in "Bandaleros". His gang rides up on Raquel Welch and her buggy driver, shoot the buggy driver. Then they get attacked by the Sheriff's men. Deano drags Raquel behind a rock. She says, "How does a man become an animal like you?"

He replies, "I didn't do it, he did it. And if he hadn't a done it, I'd a done it."

If the US wasn't spending so much time supporting various dictatorships, when those dictatorships run into a spot of natural disaster trouble, maybe they wouldn't exist and the problem wouldn't arise.

The US government might not be supporting Burma directly, but on the other hand, how about this:

BURMA: US Oil Major Complicit in Abuses - Rights Lobby
By Marwaan Macan-Markar
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42179

BANGKOK, Apr 30 (IPS) - An environmental group is warning U.S. energy giant Chevron to clean up its act in Burma or face legal proceedings where the multinational’s links to gross human rights violations in the military-ruled country could be exposed.

There has been little relief for villagers living in the Yadana pipeline region in southern Burma since the Chevron Corporation became a partner to this natural gas venture in 2005, states the Washington D.C.-based EarthRights International (EI) in a report released here Tuesday.

‘’Chevron and its consortium partners continue to rely on the Burmese army for pipeline security and those forces continue to conscript thousands of villagers for forced labour, and to commit torture, rape, murder and other serious abuses in the course of their operations,’’ revealed the 76-page report, ‘The Human Cost of Energy’.

Gee - oil and opium. Where have we heard this before? Oh, Afghanistan.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 12, 2008 9:37 PM

What's most interesting is that the very people who make the UN's missions impossible are the ones who turn around and blame the UN.

That's the point, it's not. Neither the US, nor the Republicans, nor John Bolton has not held the UN back on intervening in Darfur. It has largely been the Chinese and Russians.

So if people like Matthew are going to argue that international institutions like the UN are necessary for giving legitimacy to interventions into foriegn crises then he's going to have a figure out a way to argue that the UN is even capable of facilitating such a thing.

Posted by Mark Adams | May 12, 2008 9:47 PM

Some say that Fred Hiatt's days at the editorial page are numbered with the WaPo restructuring.

Posted by P O'Neill | May 12, 2008 10:25 PM

We march (sail) in, distribute the necessary aid, and say to the Burmese military that is causing the problem: we will kill you if you take any actions to oppose us.

The only way to do that without suffering major U.S. casualties would be to retaliate against any violence with massive air power aimed at the Burmese government. I don't think that it would be easy to do this without casusing more problems for innocent civilians than for the Burmese military junta.

Nobody. Those people are screwed. To me Peaceniks often exhibit a very rightwing conservative "tough shit, thems the breaks" kind of attitude to foreigners.

A lot of antiwarriors (myself, for example) are right-wing. Ron Paul Revolution, baby!

Posted by Glaivester | May 12, 2008 10:49 PM

"But if the UN doesn't like the criticism, maybe it should stop playing world-policeman make-believe by adopting useless resolutions like the one Hiatt was talking about.

Posted by Claudius | May 12, 2008 7:53 PM"

Then again, when most of the democracies in the world tried to reform the UN during the Bolton years, Bolton worked with dictatorships to block reform because he feared a stronger UN would be a threat to American unilateralism.

Posted by Reality Man | May 12, 2008 11:21 PM

I couldn't disagree more. It is never worth asking what Hiatt thinks on what should have been done or should be done about anything ever, unless you want to know what the worst possible option is. And since asking a sixth grader what he or she thinks is the worst thing that could be done about x would give you that information without having to listen to Hiatt's idiocy, I think we can just cut the fat out that way.

Posted by Jack | May 13, 2008 1:43 PM