Note: I've been thinking of writing up a longer series of 'editorials' like these, on the topic of specific groups, or "interests", whom the Democratic party is too beholden to, that it should re-evaluate its relationships with. What I've been reading regarding the United Nations prompts me to make them the first in a series. If you'd like me to write more of these, please let me know. And if you think the relationship with these groups is defensible: Tell me about that, too. Potential future editions include: The NEA, gun-control and anti-smoking activists, International ANSWER, Emily's List, the Pharmaceutical industry, unions, the modern American 'protestor' class, and others. Something for everyone (to be appalled by)!
Simply put, the U.N. is not acting in the world's best interests in the tsunami relief effort.
We're supporting the U.N. against criticism from all sides (especially the right wing) when we shouldn't be.
There is a right-wing Blog called
"Diplomad" that I recommend as reading for one simple reason, despite that on the issues, they probably disagree with every single thing I stand for:
Their writers are entirely U.S. foreign service officers, some of whom are on-location in the affected areas and directly involved with coordinating our relief efforts.
The general problem which they (and others) have noted is this:
The U.N.'s specialty is coordination. The idea of their existence as an aid organization (let's leave the debates over the legitimacy of international law for another day) is that by their existence, they can more effectively coordinate aid than any other country working together.
Except with the tsunami, they haven't been doing that. India, America, Australia, and Singapore have formed a far more effective "Aid Coalition" that's been putting aid on the ground in those countries and making it happen far more effectively than the UN, and far more rapidly as well.
Over at Diplomad, you can catch the highlight reel: Kofi Annan making travel plans and scheduling an oh-so-useful conference, while the U.S.-led Aid Coaliition is already distributing relief.
In true "take credit for the work of others" fashion, the UN is urging the United States and other nations to 'go blue' by wearing the UN beret in their relief efforts, because taking credit appears to be the number-one priority.
They've now, in desperation, turned to three arguments for why the U.S.-led Aid Coalition should operate under U.N. coordination:
1. The U.N. is the only organization with the moral authority to operate in the region.
My response: Is this not patently bullshit? We are distributing aid to the disaster-struck corners of the world, just as we have done for a large portion of our existence. Was that without moral benefit until the UN came into existence? And if we are more efficient aid providers, is it not the moral thing for other nations to sign on under our coalition? According to Diplomad, it's looking like that's what will happen -- nobody wants to be 'managed' by the UN due to the level of mismanagement.
2. Only the UN can do this sort of operation.
My response: The UN is largely a product of our money and our power anyway -- by forming our own aid coalition, the U.S. is simply choosing a different route to manifest its power.
3. 'Local and cultural sensitivities' are a good reason for the U.S. soldiers to don the blue beret and operate under UN mandate.
My response: Part of improving the world's view of us is getting our guys, identified as our guys, on the ground in these areas and offering relief. Much to my amazement (Seeing as how the Bush administration tends to show a fuck-all lack of competence in just about all its endeavors), we've done that here, or should I say, out-done the UN. Why should we turn down the hard-earned credit?
As for cultural sensitivities being disrupted -- show me a US aid truck which the locals refuse to take help from because "It's those hated Americans", and I'll even begin to look at that argument seriously. Because right now, all reports show that we can't get aid there fast enough, and they're taking it as fast as we can give it, if not much faster.
Simply put, a lot of what I see written around the net suggesting that America goes under U.N. mandate has a single goal in mind:
To use the United Nations to curb American power.
In my mind, as a progressive Democrat, that does not fulfill our mandate to be 'loyal opposition'.
Loyal opposition does not seek to curb American power by supporting foreign influences. Loyal opposition seeks to shift the use of American power towards a progressive vision that is beneficial to the world.
My uncle is one of the people who works on running the UN's World Food Programme, from their offices in Rome. He is a brilliant man, went to Harvard at 16 with no goal but to improve the world for the better -- but he is myopic in his view of how that goal can be achieved, and sees no route but through the 'forced multilateralism' of the United Nations.
The U.N.'s manifest incompetence in tsunami relief, among other things, shows that as an aid organization they are not necessarily the most effective or the most desirable route for our assistance to go through in any given situation.
We should look for other options.
And so, as progressives, if we hear the complaint that the U.S.-led coalition undermines the aid efforts of the United Nations, we should respond:
"Maybe the competition will force the UN to improve their inefficient practices. If not, it's about time someone else stepped up and took their place."