69 million page views

Won't "an organization of only democratically-elected governments" be the accuser,the judge and the executioner in one person?

Reader comment on item: Blame the UN's Power on George H.W. Bush

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 9, 2012 at 11:42

Dr. Pipes wrote among others :

> Syria: It is particularly painful to watch the weight of vetoes by the Russian and Chinese governments of a resolution calling on the Syrian president to leave office. How can the democracies allow dictators protecting their own to stymie their own policy?<

A no less interesting question would be this. How can the democracies be so eager to implement plans drafted by such "democratic" states as Turkey, Tunisia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Oman and rely in their efforts to put them through on the votes in the Security Council of other "democracies" like Marocco, Azrbeijan and Pakistan that all voted for it ? Apparently, whereas "permitting a semi-despotism in Moscow and a full-scale one in Peking to exert a major influence on the decisions of democratic states" is considered unacceptable, encouraging other - and much more vicious and malicious - Oriental despotic regimes to influence things in favor of "the democracies" is quite respectable and bound to provoke no scruples and pangs of conscience.

As to Dr. Pipes' opinion that "As a result, anyone wanting to get things done generally by-passed this forum, from the Berlin problem to the Vietnam War to Arab-Israeli negotiations." let me quote a contrasting opinion from a former UN Secretary-General Butros Butros-Ghali who tried hard to handle the anarchy that set in after the fall of the USSR but was fired in 1996 with a US veto and replaced by the spineless Kofi Annan. In his "Unvanquished: A U.S.-U.N. Saga" (New York Random House, 1999) he writes : "When the United Nations was allowed to do its job without substantial U.S. involvement, as in Mozambique, the operation succeeded. When the United States felt a political need for the United Nations, as in Haiti, the operation also fulfilled its main objective. But when the United States wanted to appear actively involved while in reality avoiding hard decisions, as in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda, the United Nations was misused, abused, or blamed by the United States, and the operations failed, tragically and horribly" (p. 337).

The idea that "only an American president can dismiss the UNSC and transfer its authority to an organization of only democratically-elected governments" raises a number of principal questions and first of all that of the validity of international law which seems quite useless and superfluous the moment it clashes with the interests of the US as in the case of the recent Syria Resolution. I guess if China and Russia had voted for it, the UN would be extolled to heaven as "wise" and "wonderful" by the same lady who speaks at present of her "disgust" towards China and Russia, wouldn't it ?

To be sure such a new organization (a political version of NATO consisting of democratically elected spineless yes-men) will be an obedient and efficient tool in the hands of its master who will combine three attributes he misses so much today - that of being the accuser, the judge and the executioner in one person. Everybody dreams of that role, don't they?In case of Syria it would mean that such an organization will be in charge of bringing up the accusations, arriving at the verdict and meting out the punishment with everybody in the organization clapping their hands and silencing or demonizing anybody who dares disagree and point to the underlying fraud.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (31) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
revolutions have nothing to do with democracy [235 words]calhouniteApr 10, 2012 10:11195050
Disband this money sucking monstrosity [104 words]danariFeb 23, 2012 00:42193574
Americans the British and the UN [1349 words]Martin HoranMay 31, 2012 08:31193574
The toothless U.N. [68 words]saraFeb 14, 2012 18:53193374
8Democracies and their undemocratic allies [524 words]IanusFeb 13, 2012 18:38193356
American Democracy Can No Longer Be Exported - Cannot Export What One Does Not Have [561 words]M. ToveyFeb 16, 2012 14:30193356
3When you can't export democracy because you don't have it,then you export what you have, e.g. oligarchy or Wahhabism [519 words]IanusFeb 17, 2012 16:07193356
A Rebuttal [394 words]Pied PiperFeb 25, 2012 18:00193356
2A rebuttal of the rebuttal [1095 words]IanusFeb 25, 2012 19:48193356
The Battle of the Rebuttals [519 words]Pied PiperMar 3, 2012 16:43193356
2How many witches have been recently beheaded in the US ? [551 words]IanusMar 4, 2012 06:44193356
Ibi Erit Fletus et Stridor Dentium [135 words]Pied PiperMar 6, 2012 12:53193356
2Malleus maleficarum Arabicus [646 words]IanusMar 6, 2012 23:14193356
Cutting One's Teeth on Biblical Translations [208 words]M. ToveyMar 8, 2012 17:36193356
Ego Sum Princeps Arabicus et Super Grammaticam [191 words]Pied PiperMar 11, 2012 16:05193356
So - Not in Latin Then [681 words]M. ToveyMar 12, 2012 19:09193356
1Manipulating the U. N. is Unconstitutional [886 words]M. ToveyFeb 13, 2012 12:03193351
Thanks for source of UN power and Question [105 words]Dr Bryan PoulinFeb 10, 2012 14:05193278
2We cannot put Sanctity of All Lives on the back burner in the U.N. [65 words]Michael Hanni MorcosFeb 11, 2012 23:14193278
Toothless [316 words]AEBFeb 10, 2012 14:04193277
permanent organizations and UN authority [127 words]mythFeb 9, 2012 12:56193251
4Won't "an organization of only democratically-elected governments" be the accuser,the judge and the executioner in one person? [568 words]IanusFeb 9, 2012 11:42193248
Follow that Light [40 words]Jay1Feb 8, 2012 19:58193228
That Light? It Needs to be Relit First. [370 words]M. ToveyFeb 9, 2012 18:52193228
2The UN a shameful organization [495 words]NuritGFeb 8, 2012 16:43193219
Hey UN.Go away already. [94 words]batya daganFeb 8, 2012 16:39193218
Worthless Trash= The U.N. [8 words]Sandra DeeOct 24, 2014 11:25193218
A man can always turn around if he finds he's gone in the wrong direction. [1 words]Abu NudnikFeb 8, 2012 11:18193202
UN power goals [105 words]lily flacksFeb 8, 2012 05:30193193
2How many times did George H W Bush utter the phrase 'new world order'? Too many, but few had a clue.... [39 words]Adina Kutnicki, IsraelFeb 8, 2012 05:25193192
an observation [293 words]Peter HerzFeb 18, 2012 22:44193192

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)