Yesterday, on "NBC News' Meet The Press," the following was said:
MR. RUSSERT: Is the country now secure enough to give back to the Iraqis? How could an Iraqi interim government possibly protect itself against the same insurgency that is attacking the U.S.?
GEN. CLARK: Well, two things here. First of all, of course it's not secure and you've got to have the United States there for a while. I would still go to NATO, and under my plan, I would announce a new Atlantic charter. I don't think this administration can do it, but you've got to rebuild that relationship with our allies in Europe.
What is this "new Atlantic charter" he's talking about announcing? It's the first time I heard him say this (and I thought I followed him fairly closely). This isn't about changing NATO in any fundamental way, is it? Or is this "new charter" just Clark's way of saying what he goes on to say about rebuilding the relationship with European allies?
Anyway. Extended copy. I feel like I should write something here. Lest I risk "wasting" my fourth-ever diary entry on the utterly mundane.
So, yeah. Here's something. I read today (Nov. 17, 2003) that assassins murdered UN workers in Afghanistan and now the UN is reevaluating its operations in that country, as well. This is on the front page of the Google News and should be easy to find so I'll not futz with making a link.
(Note to Kos: after the message about doing links correctly, I notice that there remains no clear direction about how to do this on my "new diary entry" page and the cheat-sheet that used to show up on "add comment" windows now shows something like "Linked Text = Linked Text." Very few people will post links correctly without guidance. But I digress.)
This news about the UN is what reminded me to ask about Clark's "new charter" comment, because as soon as I read about the changes in Afghanistan, I thought something along the lines of, "It seems the terrorists wish to demonstrate the UN's irrelevance, as well--does Clark have any ideas about the UN?"
See, the problem now is that the UN is stuck working under circumstances where they perform extremely poorly, i.e. during major (or semimajor?... dominant seventh?) combat operations. Prewar? The UN is competent with their inspectors, wretched sanctions, oil-for-food programs, etc. Postwar? The UN isn't wholly incompetent at peacekeeping--if there's actually a peace to keep. But the UN sucks at doing anything while things are still "hot."
So here are the things I wish would be discussed in the flood of comments sure to follow (hardy-har-har):
(1) What is Clark talking about? The right link is sure to answer this, but I'm also (preemptively) curious as to what people think of it. Whatever it is.
(2) Besides the obvious, "Don't ask the UN to do things it's not set up to do (like work in countries where wars are being fought)," what should be done to keep it "relevant?" Should we just let the right-wing kill it off? Never. Should the UN have a mighty warfighting arm--maybe a formal agreement with NATO to provide security for riskier UN ventures? I can imagine huge problems with that (RussiA) unless it's done correctly. Is any sort of improvement to the UN possible with the right leadership (which I see as having to come from the President of the U.S.--one the world does not completely loathe already, that is)? I would like to see either the veto-power of SC countries weakened or practical veto-override powers for the General Assembly.
But I'm a hopeless lefty, often blind to reality, and I still see the UN at the table on the day that "strangest" thing happens and papers are all signed putting an end to war. That said, I've come to realize (Gore Vidal taught me this in an explanation he gave as to why the Green Party had no chance in 2000) that it's all about power bases. And my my lefty, peacemongering comrades have no power base--neither do the rest of the countries of the world, it seems. So if the politically savvy among you tell me it's best just to let the UN die, there'll be no flames from this diarist.
What I'm trying to say is, "Go nuts. Lay the reality on me.... but be gentle to my utopian vision and try to leave me with a shred of hope."