Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: There is no cure for the UN
The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 09/17/05 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 09/15/2005 6:02:57 AM PDT by Pokey78

Kofi Annan is the very embodiment of transnationalism’s polite fictions: a dapper soft-spoken African, he seems the soul of moderation. Even when what he’s actually saying is highly immoderate, and even when he’s standing next to some disgusting dictator as he says it, he’s always a reliably decaffeinated Kofi.

So what if his brother and his son and his son’s best pal are under investigation in the UN oil-for-food scandal? So what if his secretariat got a $1.4 billion oil-for-food administration fee yet apparently couldn’t afford an auditor for the programme? So what if the head of Kofi’s budget oversight committee was too busy sluicing hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself to notice whether anybody else was on the take? So what if Saddam Hussein used the UN as a money-laundering operation to advance his geopolitical aims? Paul Volcker’s independent report has decided that, even though Mr Annan knew of the kickbacks since at least 2001, the secretary-general is guilty of sins of omission rather than commission. He and his deputy, Canada’s Louise Frechette, simply failed to notice the world’s all-time biggest scam exponentially expanding under their noses and with the enthusiastic participation of their closest colleagues.

Possibly they carelessly assumed it was just the usual nickel’n’dime UN corruption — like the child-sex rings and drug cartels that operate out of pretty well every peacekeeping operation. But the point is, while it may have happened on Kofi’s watch, he wasn’t watching, so that’s OK. Like OJ promising to hunt down the real killers, Mr Annan and Mme Frechette are committed to staying in their jobs and redoubling their efforts to spearhead the reforms the UN vitally needs. As the media ‘talking points’ distributed by the secretary-general to his underlings put it, ‘It is time to focus on the important reform agenda’ because ‘the inquiry’s findings underscore the vital importance of proposed management reforms’. And if we say ‘vital’ and ‘focus’ and ‘underscore’ often enough, this whole thing will fade away and it will be back to business as usual.

I, too, am in favour of Kofi Annan staying on, not just till his term expires in December 2006, but for five, ten years after that, if he wishes. If I was as eager for UN ‘reform’ as its supporters claim to be, I’d toss Kofi to the sharks and get some new broom in to sweep clean. But if, as I do, you believe 90 per cent of UN ‘reforms’ are likely to be either meaningless or actively harmful, a discredited and damaged secretary-general clinging to office is as good as it’s likely to get — short of promoting Didier Bourguet, the UN staffer in Congo and the Central African Republic charged with running a paedophile ring. A UN that refuses to hold Kofi Annan to account will be harder to pass off as a UN that represents the world’s ‘moral authority’, in Clare Short’s blissfully surreal characterisation.

What’s important to understand is that Mr Annan’s ramshackle UN of humanitarian money-launderers, peacekeeper-rapists and a human rights commission that looks like a lifetime-achievement awards ceremony for the world’s torturers is not a momentary aberration. Nor can it be corrected by bureaucratic reforms designed to ensure that the failed budget oversight committee will henceforth be policed by a budget oversight committee oversight committee. The oil-for-food fiasco is the UN, the predictable spawn of its utopian fantasies and fetid realities. If Saddam grasped this more clearly than Clare Short or Polly Toynbee, well, that’s why he is — was — an A-list dictator and they’re not.

Why was there an oil-for-fraud programme in the first place? Because back in the 1990s, having thrown a big old multilateral Gulf war and gotten to the gates of Baghdad, the grand UN coalition then decided against toppling Saddam. So, having shirked the responsibilities that come with having a real policy, America, Britain and the rest were in the market for a pseudo-policy. And where does an advanced Western democracy go when it wants a pseudo-policy? Why, the UN! Saddam correctly calculated that the great powers were overinvested in oil-for-food as a figleaf for their lack of will and he reasoned that in such an environment their figleaf would also serve as a discreet veil for all kinds of other activities. He didn’t game the system, he simply understood far better than Clinton and Bush, Major and Blair how it worked.

That’s the essence of transnationalism. For weeks now the Bush administration has been advised — by Mr Blair among others — that they should sign on to all the multilateral guff being peddled at this week’s so-called ‘High-Level Plenary Meeting’ because come on, it’s mostly a lot of feelgood blather, so where’s the harm? When it comes to identifying which transnational tumours metastasising across the global scene are benign, the Prime Minister isn’t your most reliable diagnostician. As I recall, the principal beneficiaries of the United Kingdom’s signature on the European Declaration of Human Rights were supposed to be British transsexuals, who were very excited about it for some reason or another. Instead, it turned out to be boom time for suspected Islamist terrorists, non-citizens but now serenaded by every London judge with a soothing chorus of ‘Undeportable, that’s what you are.’

Transnationalism is the mechanism by which the world’s most enlightened progressives provide cover for its darkest forces. It’s a largely unconscious alliance but not an illogical one. Western proponents of ‘sustainable consumption’ and some of the other loopy NGO-beloved eco-concepts up for debate in New York this week have at least this much in common with psychotic Third World thugocracies: both groups find it hard to win free elections, both regard transnational bodies as useful for conferring a respect unearned at the ballot box, and neither is unduly troubled by the lack of accountability in global institutions.

Those of us who believe that big government is by definition remote government and that therefore the pretensions to world government of the UN make it potentially the worst of all should, in theory, argue for withdrawal from the organisation. A neighbour of mine periodically pins one of his ‘US OUT OF UN NOW!’ bumper stickers to the back of my rig, and I’m happy to drive around with it. Outside a few college towns and effete coastal enclaves, I don’t believe there would be any political downside for candidates campaigning on a platform of pulling out of the UN entirely, and I’d encourage Republicans to do so if only as a way of unnerving those lazy pols like John Kerry who are prone to mindless transnationalist boosterism. But as a matter of practical politics I can’t see the US leaving the UN any time soon.

Can the US force the UN to reform itself? I mean really reform itself, not just get-Kofi-off-the-hook reform. Well, look at it this way: with hindsight, the UN was most effective when it was least effective — that’s to say, the four decades between Korea and the Gulf when the Cold War mutually assured vetoes at least accurately represented the global stand-off. Now, however, we’re in a unipolar world. And, as a result, the UN is no longer a permanent talking-shop for the world’s powers but an alternative power in and of itself — a sort of ersatz superpower intended to counter the real one. Consider the 85 yes-or-no votes America made in the General Assembly in 2003:

The Arab League members voted against the US position 88.7 per cent of the time.

The ASEAN members voted against the US position 84.5 per cent of the time.

The Islamic Conference members voted against the US position 84.1 per cent of the time.

The African members voted against the US position 83.8 per cent of the time.

The Non-Aligned Movement members voted against the US position 82.7 per cent of the time.

And European Union members voted against the US position 54.5 per cent of the time.

You can take the view of the Will Hutton school that this is proof of America’s isolation and that the United States now needs to issue a ‘Declaration of Interdependence’ with the world. Or you can be like the proud mom in Irving Berlin’s Great War marching song: ‘They Were All Out Of Step But Jim’. But what the figures really demonstrate is that the logic of the post-Cold War UN is to be institutionally anti-American. Washington could seize on Kofi Annan’s present embarrassment and lean hard on him to reform this and reorganise that and reinvent the other and, if they threw their full diplomatic muscle behind it, they might get those anti-US votes down to — what, a tad over 80 per cent? And along the way they’d find that they’d ‘reformed’ a corrupt dysfunctional sclerotic anti-American club into a lean mean functioning effective anti-American club. Which is, if they’re honest, what most reformers mean by ‘reform’.

Obviously, within those various blocs, America has many friends. But the regional voting structure of the UN means that even relatively well-disposed allies become less friendly when their voice is filtered through geographic groupings that prize solidarity over all. For example, Libya became chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission because it was felt to be Africa’s turn and Africa put up only one candidate and the European Union had agreed to vote as a bloc and they didn’t wish to be seen to be disrespecting Africa by voting against its preferred candidate, so they abstained. So, by filtering Britain’s voice through one transnational body (the EU) into another (the UN) to vote on the candidate of a third (the African Union), Her Majesty’s Government is now on record as having no objection to the world’s leading human rights body being headed by a one-man dictatorship that blows up American airliners in British airspace. It’s a good thing the UN has ‘moral authority’, because the United Kingdom certainly doesn’t. Thus, transnationalism artificially diminishes the voice of second-tier powers and artificially inflates basket-case psycho states.

Any real reform of the UN would start by dismantling the deeply unhealthy regional structure. Instead, reformers complain that the permanent Security Council membership excludes all of Africa and Latin America, and demand that Brazil and South Africa be brought on board as regional house captains. That would be a disaster. An India that sits alongside America as a fellow democracy, trading partner and beneficiary of the Britannic inheritance is one thing. An India that represents an invented power bloc defined by the increasingly outmoded constraints of geography would just be a vehicle for taking those 85 per cent negative votes up to the Security Council.

Yet we’re now being told that the United States is obstructing the 60th anniversary ‘full-blown relaunching’, as the Washington Post puts it, by impeding the expansion of the Security Council. One can only hope so. ‘Relaunching’ the UN in a fast-changing world is like trying to redesign a horse-and-buggy for a moon-shot. Take last month’s first Sino-Russian war games, a rare joint venture by the two non-Western members of the Big Five. Moscow may see an alliance with Beijing as its only hope of retaining world-power status. By 2020, when the agreement on the 4,000-mile Russian-Chinese border comes up for renegotiation, the Far East of the Russian Federation, containing 80 per cent of the country’s resources, will have been de facto settled by the Chinese.

That’s not a corner of the world anyone thinks about much right now, but it will look profoundly different in 15 years’ time. How likely are we — or, more to the point, Kofi Annan, Louise Frechette and co. — to be able to construct formal structures for a world just a decade and a half hence? Given the unlikelihood of getting it right, it’s preferable to stick with the second world war victory parade preserved in aspic. The existing Security Council’s ever more obvious obsolescence will be the best counterweight to the lazy assumption that transnationalism is the wave of the future.

So I hope that by the time you read this the deliberations at Turtle Bay are poised somewhere between paralysis and meltdown. The polite fictions of Kofi Annan really belong to the lost world of 10 September 2001. It was very agreeable if you were one of the bespoke chaps cruising from summit to summit — UN, EU, G8 — mediating the cares of the planet. And it was all terribly sophisticated, as sophisticated as an urbane Paris boulevardier from the fin de siècle, impeccably coiffed and coutured but riddled with syphilis. Since Osama bin Laden blew apart those polite fictions, the effective international relationships — America and Australia, America and India — have taken place without the construction of permanent secretariats. Let’s keep it that way. The best way to avoid having to ‘reform’ transnational bureaucracies is not to have them in the first place.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: marksteyn; steyn; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 09/15/2005 6:02:58 AM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...

Steyn ping!


2 posted on 09/15/2005 6:04:40 AM PDT by Pokey78 (‘FREE [INSERT YOUR FETID TOTALITARIAN BASKET-CASE HERE]’)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I disagree. There certainly IS a cure:

HR 1146

3 posted on 09/15/2005 6:05:31 AM PDT by highlymotivated (If American ever falls, a STINKING LIBERAL will be behind it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

The UN only exists to help themselves to American wealth. The people who run the UN are no different than the crowd that ran the place formerly known as New Orleans.


4 posted on 09/15/2005 6:10:58 AM PDT by henkster (When democrats talk of "the rich," they are referring to anyone with a private sector job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the ping Pokey.

L

5 posted on 09/15/2005 6:19:02 AM PDT by Lurker (Reality cannot be changed by wishful thinking, good intentions, or legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Breathtakingly brilliant! Steyn is such an educator.

The UN is so Sept 10th, and we should keep it that way. YES!


6 posted on 09/15/2005 6:57:20 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It can not be any more brilliant!

Thank for the ping, Pokey.

Mark Steyn BUMP!!
7 posted on 09/15/2005 7:00:17 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SW6906

Ping


8 posted on 09/15/2005 7:01:20 AM PDT by namsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The polite fictions of Kofi Annan really belong to the lost world of 10 September 2001. It was very agreeable if you were one of the bespoke chaps cruising from summit to summit — UN, EU, G8 — mediating the cares of the planet. And it was all terribly sophisticated, as sophisticated as an urbane Paris boulevardier from the fin de siècle, impeccably coiffed and coutured but riddled with syphilis. Since Osama bin Laden blew apart those polite fictions, the effective international relationships — America and Australia, America and India — have taken place without the construction of permanent secretariats. Let’s keep it that way. The best way to avoid having to ‘reform’ transnational bureaucracies is not to have them in the first place.

Absolutely brilliant Steyn! Thanks Pkoey!

9 posted on 09/15/2005 7:15:49 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Kofi Annan ... So what if his brother and his son and his son’s best pal are under investigation in the UN oil-for-food scandal? So what if his secretariat got a $1.4 billion oil-for-food administration fee yet apparently couldn’t afford an auditor for the programme?

Kofi - all hat, no cattle, all illusion, no substance...

And last but not least: all sociopathic charm, no integrity.

10 posted on 09/15/2005 7:23:31 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Kofi, his boy et al - need to be in jail. The US should walk away from the corruption and let the UN sink in it's own stinch.


11 posted on 09/15/2005 7:27:04 AM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

You can take the man out of the Third World but you can't take...


12 posted on 09/15/2005 7:30:29 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlymotivated; IncPen; Nailbiter; Forecaster
Obviously, within those various blocs, America has many friends. But the regional voting structure of the UN means that even relatively well-disposed allies become less friendly when their voice is filtered through geographic groupings that prize solidarity over all. For example, Libya became chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission because it was felt to be Africa’s turn and Africa put up only one candidate and the European Union had agreed to vote as a bloc and they didn’t wish to be seen to be disrespecting Africa by voting against its preferred candidate, so they abstained. So, by filtering Britain’s voice through one transnational body (the EU) into another (the UN) to vote on the candidate of a third (the African Union), Her Majesty’s Government is now on record as having no objection to the world’s leading human rights body being headed by a one-man dictatorship that blows up American airliners in British airspace. It’s a good thing the UN has ‘moral authority’, because the United Kingdom certainly doesn’t. Thus, transnationalism artificially diminishes the voice of second-tier powers and artificially inflates basket-case psycho states.

Blimey, he's right.

13 posted on 09/15/2005 7:34:26 AM PDT by BartMan1 (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

there IS a cure for the UN - give Turtle bay back to the turtles.


14 posted on 09/15/2005 7:35:46 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Bumperoo!


15 posted on 09/15/2005 7:36:52 AM PDT by metesky (This land was your land, this land is MY land; I bought the rights from a town selectman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

BTTT


16 posted on 09/15/2005 7:53:23 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlymotivated
Only UN-Americans put the UN before America!
17 posted on 09/15/2005 7:54:30 AM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
But what the figures really demonstrate is that the logic of the post-Cold War UN is to be institutionally anti-American.

Exactly what we discussed on the phone last night.

Steyn's article is brilliant throughout, but that one sentence is all that is really needed. The UN should be moved to Geneva.

18 posted on 09/15/2005 8:02:09 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Roberts = CHIEF; 'Rats = GRIEF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Only UN-Americans put the UN before America!

That's why Kerry, Carter, Clinton and friends are so pro-UN and why they are loved by our enemies and so-called friends around the world.

19 posted on 09/15/2005 8:03:23 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Roberts = CHIEF; 'Rats = GRIEF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

I so adore this man! It's hard not to go ga-ga over his incredible mind! Thanks for the ping, Pokey!

This gem is too long to be my new tag, but along with his biting wit ("thugocracies", "Undeportable, that's what you are"), proves why THIS MAN is simply the best:
"Transnationalism is the mechanism by which the world’s most enlightened progressives provide cover for its darkest forces."


20 posted on 09/15/2005 8:28:13 AM PDT by alwaysconservative (You're just jealous because the voices talk only to ME.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

The Arab League members voted against the US position 88.7 per cent of the time.

The ASEAN members voted against the US position 84.5 per cent of the time.

The Islamic Conference members voted against the US position 84.1 per cent of the time.

The African members voted against the US position 83.8 per cent of the time.

The Non-Aligned Movement members voted against the US position 82.7 per cent of the time.

And European Union members voted against the US position 54.5 per cent of the time.


It's hopeless!!!


21 posted on 09/15/2005 8:28:44 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: scholar; Bullish; linear; yoda swings

Ping


22 posted on 09/15/2005 8:48:47 AM PDT by knighthawk (We will always remember We will always be proud We will always be prepared so we may always be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom Jefferson; backhoe; BARLF; timestax; imintrouble; cake_crumb; Brad's Gramma; MizSterious; ...
A neighbour of mine periodically pins one of his ‘US OUT OF UN NOW!’ bumper stickers to the back of my rig, and I’m happy to drive around with it.

No more UN for US-list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

23 posted on 09/15/2005 8:50:08 AM PDT by knighthawk (We will always remember We will always be proud We will always be prepared so we may always be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maica

Breathtakingly brilliant! Steyn is such an educator.

Mark seems to get better and better.


24 posted on 09/15/2005 8:57:33 AM PDT by Grateful One (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

Thanks for the ping. Steyn's great!


25 posted on 09/15/2005 9:01:58 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Steyn-O-Mite !!!!


26 posted on 09/15/2005 9:35:50 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats; XJarhead

Glad to see you are carrying on a family tradition. I was in favor of moving the UN to East Berlin way, way back when. I hope someday I will get over the shame of being a student delegate to a UNESCO conference in the very late 40's or early 50's, of having any association whatsoever with this corrupt organization. I didn't go voluntarily--it was a school assignment.


27 posted on 09/15/2005 9:56:10 AM PDT by GoldwaterChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; Tolik

this man is just SO good at nailing it


28 posted on 09/15/2005 10:13:28 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grateful One

Did you hear Rush say that when President Bush met Kofi yesterday, he said "How's Bolton doing? Anything blown up yet?"


29 posted on 09/15/2005 11:02:30 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bttt


30 posted on 09/15/2005 11:03:33 AM PDT by TEXOKIE (Wear Red on Fridays to support the troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I want the UN phased out of existence not strengthened. That's why I don't want John Bolton to succeed. I want the UN to become, in the words of a little Rush lingo, histoire. The unholy power cabal of the Western Left and the world's thugocracies needs to be permanently broken. And the sooner the better.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
31 posted on 09/15/2005 12:05:36 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

BTTT!!


32 posted on 09/15/2005 12:12:50 PM PDT by SW6906
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk

I agree with this article, but my question is this: What would happen if President Bush said that we are leaving the UN effective immediately? There are so many positives that would come out of it, and I guess the negatives would be politically for the Repubs. I wonder if that will ever be a possibility in our lifetimes?


33 posted on 09/15/2005 12:29:20 PM PDT by CharlieOK1 (Have you read my #1 Bestseller? There is a test. -God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Pokey78

BTTT


35 posted on 09/15/2005 1:02:05 PM PDT by Gritty ("The UN was most effective when it was least effective" - Mk Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative
It's hard not to go ga-ga over his incredible mind!

I am unabashedly proud of going ga-ga for Steyn.

36 posted on 09/15/2005 1:02:19 PM PDT by Ruth A.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CharlieOK1
Let's go another step in thinking. What if President Bush said, "We are pulling out of the UN effective immediately and will use that money to pay for recovery from Katrina, Ophelia, etc. The UN is welcome to leave by December 2005 and after that we will be charging rent, giving parking tickets and allowing no diplomatic immunity for UN members in the US."
37 posted on 09/15/2005 1:08:02 PM PDT by Ruth A.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ruth A.

stop it, you're getting me all excited!


38 posted on 09/15/2005 1:11:20 PM PDT by CharlieOK1 (Have you read my #1 Bestseller? There is a test. -God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA

"The logical end of expanding the Security Council is removing the permanent veto."

The veto is the only reason we should remain in the UN.


39 posted on 09/15/2005 1:28:04 PM PDT by decal ("The Republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

I speak Chinese as a first language, and I can say media from South East Asian countries (which is what ASEAN countries cover: it has Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesi, and Brunei covered). Much of the media is fiercely Third World nationalistic anti-American and to the extreme hardcore veriety - nothing short og a President Noam Chomsky on the part of the UNited States will make these chaps happy. They actually make Germany or Sweden, if not France, like Steyn's friends. Sure, there are friends of America in the region, such as Singapore and Thailand, but some countries are actively anti-American (Burma no doubt, Malaysia is the main one).

And because this region is no basketbase (Malaysia is actually very powerful economically) and not stagnating like the EU, it is quite an alarming prospect for the US.


40 posted on 09/15/2005 2:30:07 PM PDT by NZerFromHK ("US libs...hypocritical, naive, pompous...if US falls it will be because of these" - Tao Kit (HK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ruth A.
Let's go another step in thinking. What if President Bush said, "We are pulling out of the UN effective immediately and will use that money to pay for recovery from Katrina, Ophelia, etc. The UN is welcome to leave by December 2005 and after that we will be charging rent, giving parking tickets and allowing no diplomatic immunity for UN members in the US."

Wicked girl, now you're just toying with our emotions... :)

This is one of Steyn's best, and that's saying something.

41 posted on 09/15/2005 2:31:44 PM PDT by Felicity Fahrquar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

See my post 40. I think the US should actually raise their guards against the ASEAN as well, because unlike the EU they are actually developing economically.


42 posted on 09/15/2005 2:32:04 PM PDT by NZerFromHK ("US libs...hypocritical, naive, pompous...if US falls it will be because of these" - Tao Kit (HK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NZerFromHK

We have to hope that all countries are being watched. Most Americans are so ignorant (as in unaware) of Asian countries that it is sad, and scary.

US Media power lives in the NY to DC corridor and PacRim is a concept they are oblivious to.


43 posted on 09/15/2005 2:57:05 PM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative
Well, I totally agree with your assertion that Mark Steyn's wit is biting:

"thugocracies", "Undeportable, that's what you are"

but would like to add my choice to your quotes:

he’s always a reliably decaffeinated Kofi.

44 posted on 09/15/2005 4:06:13 PM PDT by Neophyte (Nazists, Communists, Islamists... what the heck is the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks Pokey

FMCDH(BITS)

45 posted on 09/15/2005 4:08:33 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Too nauseating to read past:

>> a discredited and damaged secretary-general clinging to office is as good as it’s likely to get

Let them twist in the wind. We will pay one way or the other, might as well get a laugh out of the trillions these pygmies will cost us over the next decades.
46 posted on 09/15/2005 4:45:44 PM PDT by mmercier (every mans united nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1
"Western proponents of ‘sustainable consumption’ and some of the other loopy NGO-beloved eco-concepts up for debate in New York this week have at least this much in common with psychotic Third World thugocracies: both groups find it hard to win free elections, both regard transnational bodies as useful for conferring a respect unearned at the ballot box, and neither is unduly troubled by the lack of accountability in global institutions."

- Jeez, when I was in college years ago I can remember a bunch of us buying some cheap wine and sitting around all night arguing the merits of a statement like the one above. With insights like that, Steyn should be teaching international relations at some reputable university. I'm sure his lectures would be overbooked.
47 posted on 09/15/2005 4:49:31 PM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maica

I think it is an absolute must, because Southeast Asian anti-Americanism are from a confident economically newly-developed people with classical nationalistic aspirations and perhaps with some religious fervours as well. They are not from rich, spoiled, hedonistic, but economically dim as is the European Union, nor are they from countries that are sunk in hopelessness as do many of the Thirfd World banana republics.

They have the thoughts, and the will, and the means to actually threaten America. In particular, watch out Malaysia because this is a country where Muslims do know how to make and do business. Do a "divide-and-conquer" approach to the camp: develop relations with Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, and perhspa (ugh) Vietnam, and isolate Burma (which is of course nasty and coincidentially also propped up by P.R. China), and engage Indonesia.


48 posted on 09/15/2005 5:11:33 PM PDT by NZerFromHK ("US libs...hypocritical, naive, pompous...if US falls it will be because of these" - Tao Kit (HK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NZerFromHK

I don't understand why these countries would want to challenge America, as opposed to becoming trading partners with America.

Have you ever visited the States? You should try to spend some time here. We are so strong economically, as well as emotionally, it is hard to imagine from afar.


49 posted on 09/15/2005 5:20:45 PM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2

With insights like that, Steyn should be teaching international relations at some reputable university. I'm sure his lectures would be overbooked.
#####

He would be a Rock Star of lecturers.


50 posted on 09/15/2005 5:23:36 PM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson