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

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.

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".