Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The UN decision on Zimbabwe is based on neither morality nor decency

The Security Council has shown itself to be the enemy of human rights

The failure of the Security Council to agree a set of modest sanctions against Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe's henchmen - such as a freeze on financial assets and a travel ban - speaks volumes about the reality of the UN and the fatuity of those who place any moral store by its decisions. There could be no clearer case for action. No civilised nation can regard Mr Mugabe's behaviour as anything other than obscene. But decisions of the Security Council have never been based on decency or morality. They are based on realpolitik. The UN's very constitution as a body including some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet necessitates that.

Indeed, the UN is structurally incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of civilised behaviour. Whether it is its failure to stand up to the Burmese regime or to deal with the threat to Israel posed by a nuclear Iran, or its support for Hezbollah, the UN has shown itself to be not the promoter but the enemy of human rights.

The most bizarre reaction to the Security Council's rejection of sanctions is disappointment. Could anyone seriously expect the Chinese Government, which locks up and tortures dissidents and props up the Mugabe regime to further its own economic interests, to overturn decades of foreign policy and act in support of democracy and human rights? In 2005 the Chinese signed an aid agreement with Zimbabwe and made an explicit promise not to interfere in its "internal affairs", saying that it "trusts Zimbabwe's Government and people have the ability to deal properly with their own matters".

The idea that the UN holds some special legitimacy and moral worth is not merely naive - it can make a bad situation worse. Mugabe now claims that he has been exonerated by the UN. Had the UN not existed, no attention would be paid to the failure of Russia and China to criticise him, because that is entirely to be expected. And if, as they should, the EU's member states were to impose stronger sanctions, that would not be seen as somehow in opposition to the UN.

The UN has never had greater moral legitimacy than any other ad hoc assemblage of states. Far more legitimacy would attach to a league of democracies, as suggested by the US presidential candidate John McCain. Its decisions would have the moral force of democratic backing. It is time to say goodbye to the moral bankruptcy of the UN.

Source. The WSJ expresses similar views to the above.


Dem Leader: Global Warming & Darfur(?) Led to Black Hawk Down

More Reason Why Democrats Cannot Be Trusted With National Security... Or, Geography Classes-- Do you remember the tragic 1993 Battle of Mogadishu? This was one of the conflicts where "liberal hawk" John Murtha called for defeat. It was also a decisive win for Al-Qaeda after Bill Clinton cut and run. This "victory" was later used by Osama bin Laden to mock America, the paper tiger, and rally his goons. Well, leave it to a liberal representative from Massachusetts to rewrite the history and geography books on this one...

Top Democrat Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) claims that climate change caused Black Hawk Down. CNS News reported: "A top Democrat told high school students gathered at the U.S. Capitol Thursday that climate change caused Hurricane Katrina and the conflict in Darfur, which led to the "black hawk down" battle between U.S. troops and Somali rebels."

Darfur is a region in western Sudan and Mogadishu is on the coast of East Africa. The Darfur crisis had nothing to do with the Battle of Mogadishu. The factional wars between warlords led to the destruction of the agriculture of Somalia, not the crisis in Darfur. Does Rep. Markey even know where Mogadishu is?



Good advice for McCain

If Mr. McCain wants to turn his floundering campaign around, he should heed the advice offered by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:8: "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?" ...

Mr. McCain has said (for him) some remarkably sensible things recently about energy. He's for drilling off our coasts. He wants to build more nuclear power plants. He's one of the few members of Congress to have opposed from the get-go the biofuels fraud, which, according to a recent World Bank study, has forced up global food prices 75 percent while only negligibly reducing demand for oil.

Opinion polls show a large majority of Americans favor drilling off our coasts, and comfortable majorities favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve and building nuclear plants. A majority (even in Iowa!) now opposes ethanol mandates. Energy policy could be a game changer, as potent an issue for Republicans in 2008 as the war in Iraq was for Democrats in 2006.

But Mr. McCain has been Hamlet when he needs to be Henry V. He is discarding a strong hand through mixed messages and equivocation. He supports drilling on the outer continental shelf, but opposes it in ANWR. He backs a "cap and trade" program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that would devastate our economy. Nuance is important in policy-making, but can be disastrous in political campaigning. If the trumpet be uncertain .

Mr. McCain needs to decide, pronto, which is more important to him: Winning the election or receiving an occasional kind word from liberal pundits who will vote against him. If he wants to win, Mr. McCain needs to demonstrate in a dramatic way he'll take every reasonable step to increase energy supplies - including drilling in ANWR.

More here



It's "Open Season" on Egypt's large Christian minority, a minority that goes back to the time of Christ. Those charming Muslims at work again, of course. Details here

GWB backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran: "President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official. Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times. "Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support."


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


No comments: