« More Indecency Please | Main | Basketblogging Returns »
Not Even a Single Metaphor!
The usually-absurd Tom Friedman manages to wrap today's column in the absurd suggestion that George H.W. Bush shoudl be U.N. Ambassador. But lurking in the middle there must be the ghost of the man who wrote From Beirut To Jerusalem:
The White House claims it needs the pugnacious Mr. Bolton at the U.N. to whip it into shape and oversee real reform there. I have only one thing to say in response to that pablum: Give me a break. We do not need a U.N. ambassador to "reform" the U.N. That is not what America needs or wants from the U.N. You want to reform the U.N.? You want to analyze its budgets and overhaul its bureaucratic processes, well, then hire McKinsey & Co. - not John Bolton. (Everyone knows he prefers to torch the place.)Yeah. I mean, look, obviously a more effective U.N. bureacracy would be nice. But all that stuff is small potatoes. It's as if when I brought up Social Security you were to respond by worrying about whether or not some GS-3 in the SSA somewhere is stealing paper clips. You need to a diplomat who will practice effective diplomacy, not a bureacratic warrior who wants to destroy the U.N. and subvert his boss's standing inside the administration vis-à-vis that of the Vice President."Reforming the U.N." is without question one of the most tired, vacuous conservative mantras ever invented. It is right up there with squeezing "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the Pentagon's budget. If the White House is concerned about waste, fraud and abuse, let's start with Tom DeLay and our own House.
Sorry, but we don't need a management consultant as our U.N. ambassador.
April 27, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83441975253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not Even a Single Metaphor!:
Comments
Outrage fatigue.
Posted by: Dawna | Apr 27, 2005 3:00:23 PM
So "conservatives" want to reform the UN and "progressives" are attached to the status quo.
Sanity check time:
a) Is the UN an effective international institution?
b) Can the UN be improved?
Posted by: am | Apr 27, 2005 3:01:10 PM
Good post, but not even a single metaphor? I count three on a quick read: whip, break, and torch. Overhaul? Probably not.
Posted by: jdh | Apr 27, 2005 3:05:46 PM
So, what precisely do you find absurd about the suggestion of GHWB, you tease?
The elder Mr. Bush has professed respect for multilateralism, doesn't have a reputation for inflammatory rhetoric, might be viewed as having more of a grownup's view of the Middle East, and could put in a plug for his new best friend, President Clinton, for Secretary-General. Okay, I'm kidding about the last one. But still. I'm not even saying all of the above perceptions are genuine, but I'm willing to believe that he wouldn't want to burn down the UN and start over. He's also chummy with Dr. Rice, which makes it even more likely he'd be on the side of the less egregiously offensive devils in the War of State vs. Defense. Yes, he's tainted by ties to the repressive Saudi regime, but so are the President and Vice President, so there's no getting around that.
Posted by: mds | Apr 27, 2005 3:06:56 PM
I was thinking the same thing MDS. What is so absurb? More importantly, what is so wrong considering the range of possibilities that Bush 43 would even consider.
Posted by: Adrock | Apr 27, 2005 3:12:42 PM
Since McKinsey has destroyed every organization I have ever seen them work at/on/over, perhaps the Radical Right really _should_ engage them to "reform" the UN!
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 27, 2005 3:15:33 PM
So "conservatives" want to destroy the UN, since it's not as effective as it could be, and "progressives" think that killing the patient to cure the disease is a bit over the top.
a) Is the UN an effective international institution? Sometimes. They're doing a good job keeping the heat on Nepal, for example. The answer naturally changes if "effective" == "promotes US interests exclusively."
b) Can the UN be improved? Yes, most definitely. For one, the veto-holding permanent membership of the Security Council, where the stick-wielding power of the UN lies, could stand some reform. Likewise, the Human Rights Commission shouldn't be hamstrung by, e.g., Sudan being on it when actions against the Sudan are being considered by it. At the very least, some sort of mandatory recusal would be good. Of course, if the whole thing could be moved out of the Commission's hands and into those of the ICC... Well, see "veto-holding permanent membership" above.
c) Is someone with a reputation for inflammatory remarks, and a desire to do away with the UN, a person who will be carefully listened to on the subject of reform? No. Since the UN by definition is a collection of sovereign nations, sending in a tough-guy Jack Welch to act like he's the CEO who can whip the place into shape single-handedly is obviously ridiculous. Just to press my previous point, I actually think many at the UN would take GHWB more seriously.
And Cranky, don't be so hard on McKinsey. At least they're not KPMG.
Posted by: mds | Apr 27, 2005 3:24:12 PM
Elevator pitch! Elevator pitch! I think the phrase an effective UN has some of the qualities Matt was looking for in his previous posting. To be more precise, I mean an effective UN representing all peoples.
Most American conservatives are nationalists at heart, and do not want an effective UN. If they want a UN at all, they want one that rubberstamps American interests (i.e, the "new world order" of Gulf War I was fine, but only because it aligned with US interests anyway). Liberals are more likely to be internationalists who want a UN that can represent the interests of all peoples, even if it means that the US does not always get its own way. The UN as it now exists is pretty ineffective, though it's better than nothing. You might find someone who says that the UN is just fine as it is, but I doubt there is anyone apart from some bureaucrats on the UN payroll who really feels that way in their hearts.
In short, the notion that it's good to have a formal check against US hegemony has the qualities of being simply stated, embraced enthusiastically by many, and yet extremely divisive.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Apr 27, 2005 3:26:45 PM
Should the UN be reformed in a proper way (i.e. made more democratic and more powerful), the so-called 'conservatives' would hate and fear it like never before and poor Mr. Bolton would probably have an immediate heart attack.
Yet, they want to 'reform'. Go figure.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 27, 2005 3:27:46 PM
Didn't Friedman already nominate GWB for something else?
Oh yeah, he wrote a column endorsing him for Prez. Or was that David Broder who did that?
Posted by: praktike | Apr 27, 2005 3:35:06 PM
Side issue:
"Reforming the U.N." is without question one of the most tired, vacuous conservative mantras ever invented. It is right up there with squeezing "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the Pentagon's budget.
C'mon Friedman, like anyone's ever tried to enact a Pentagon fraud/waste elimination program, especially conservatives. I mean, the DoD can't account for about a trillion dollars (this was reported in 2003, I think they've gotten an additional $50 billion per year since then).
Posted by: norbizness | Apr 27, 2005 3:36:12 PM
What's the deal with Friedman anyway? The guy seems bright. He even comes across as articulate. But he doesn't seem to be able to take an objective look at the UN or America's role in f-ing it up.
If the UN is going to be fixed..we need an energetic and willing ambassador who can be trusted to support the idea of the UN. We need a person who really wants to see it work. We need someone absolutely dedicated to independence from the Bush 43 Team...who clearly has an "America first..screw the rest of you" foreign policy.
This isn't rocket science. What's the matter with Friedman?
Posted by: carla | Apr 27, 2005 3:41:37 PM
A couple of reponses to Paul Callahan:
To be more precise, I mean an effective UN representing all peoples.
But the UN doesn't represent "peoples"; it represents governments. The "peoples" of China and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Zimbabwe and Cuba are just not represented there. If you can figure out a way that they would be, I love to hear it.
they want a UN at all, they want one that rubberstamps American interests
I continue to be incredulous at the degree to which the left is simply against America pursuing American interests. As if it were a bad thing!
Even if we are to accept that the "US does not always get its own way" in the UN, that has nothing to do with whether we should advocate American interests there.
Posted by: Al | Apr 27, 2005 3:47:25 PM
Even if we are to accept that the "US does not always get its own way" in the UN, that has nothing to do with whether we should advocate American interests there.
And where did I write that the US should not advocate American interests within the framework of an effective UN representating all peoples?
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Apr 27, 2005 4:05:20 PM
Good post, but not even a single metaphor? I count three on a quick read: whip, break, and torch.
Using a secondary meaning of a word does not a metaphor make. None of the word uses you mention are metaphorical, especially not 'break' in 'Give me a break.'
Posted by: washerdreyer | Apr 27, 2005 4:08:54 PM
"Yeah. I mean, look, obviously a more effective U.N. bureacracy would be nice."
This is far from obvious. That's really what we want, right? An effective corrupt bureaucracy, efficiently stealing money, arranging for troops to rape the people they're supposedly protecting, and providing various murderous kleptocracies with legalistic cover.
Reform first, THEN make efficient. If today's UN were more efficient, it would simply do bad things more effectively.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Apr 27, 2005 4:09:01 PM
Right-wingers have a basic objection to the UN - it's full of
foreigners, and not even almost-American foreigners like the
Brits and Australians, but unruly foreigners who speak different
languages and have distinctly un-American views. This is an
outrage! And clearly, if we could "reform" the UN, then there
would never be any need for the US to talk to (or worse, listen
to) those nasty foreigners.
Sane people, however, recognize that all nations do need to talk
to each other, and that if you change the UN to stop other nations
telling you stuff you don't want to hear, then you're just going
to hear it in some other forum. Which would you rather have,
Khrushchev banging his shoe at the UN, or the Red Army rolling
into Germany to make the same point ?
Posted by: Richard Cownie | Apr 27, 2005 4:19:27 PM
Reform first, THEN make efficient. If today's UN were more efficient, it would simply do bad things more effectively.
Amen to that, which is why some of us were referring to reform rather than effectiveness.
An effective corrupt bureaucracy, efficiently stealing money, arranging for troops to rape the people they're supposedly protecting, and providing various murderous kleptocracies with legalistic cover.
I managed to suppress my irony alarm, so I'm not going to take the obvious shot that if these are major problems at the UN, the US pushing reform might be the pot calling the kettle black.
Oh, shoot...
Posted by: mds | Apr 27, 2005 4:23:07 PM
"But lurking in the middle there must be the ghost of the man who wrote From Beirut To Jerusalem"
I read FBTJ a few years ago, and I remember thinking it was actually, well, good. Every time I read one of Friedman's columns, though, I figure I must have been mistaken.
If I'm reading the above quote correctly, I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one.
Posted by: bh | Apr 27, 2005 5:16:44 PM
You certainly ought to suppress that irony alarm, it's glitching badly.
The basic objection to the UN comes in three aspects:
First, the UN was fatally compromised at it's origin, by the decision to include as equal members evil governments. Rather like setting up a neighborhood watch program, and inviting the residents of the local crack house to help run it. Nations run by unelected strongmen are treated as equal to democracies with civil liberties.
And, second, the UN, (In large part due to the influence of members without the rule of law, or civic traditions of honest government.) is corrupt. MASSIVELY corrupt.
Finally, yes, allowing the UN to have influence over our policies, means having our policies influenced by people who hold ideals dramatically different from, in many cases diametricly opposed to, our own ideals. Legal traditions without trial by jury, for instance. Nations where civil liberties we are proud about aren't just absent, but rejected.
All GOOD reasons for wanting little to do with the organization. In fact, the only real reason for sticking with it, is that we can help moderate the damage it does.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Apr 27, 2005 5:21:15 PM
Brett,
I would think that if you were creating an organization of governments that are good (align with you), that would better be created as an alliance -- say NATO.
Isn't the UN's role is to provide a scope of being able to have some way of communicating with pretty much anybody in power (good or evil). Then give the most powerful members veto power. Note none of this is based on good or evil or type of government, but rather on a general scheme of power. This was probably due to the fact that if it wasn't based on power, then it would be dismissed even faster by governments that don't agree with it.
If the point were trying to push a governance organization based on rectitude, wouldn't you try to do it through the allianced (trade/military) form?
Just a thought.
Posted by: Doug | Apr 27, 2005 5:45:30 PM
My analogy for a UN that only accepted well-behaved democracies was a church that refused to admit sinners. Kinda the opposite of the point & purpose.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 27, 2005 5:51:58 PM
Matt, you and Friedman appear deeply uninformed on this issue and need to do some more homework. Friedman doesn't know what he is talking about if he thinks UN reform is some "conservative mantra". In fact it is liberal internationalists around the world who have been most engaged in the UN reform movement. UN reform is not "small potatoes" at all.
You seem not to understand what the phrase "UN reform" entails. We're not just talking about streamlining the bureaucracy. There are a number of important and very serious proposals out there, including those in the report issued by the Secretary-General's High Level Panel, the panel on which Brent Scowcroft sat. These reports have recommended very major changes in the constitution of the Security Council, the power of the Secretary General, the replacement of corrupt, dysfunctional organs like the Human Rights Commission, financial reform, a very important expansion of the role of the IAEA, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission that would integrate the work or the UN with that of the World Bank and IMF to manage post-conflict situations, etc.
The UN Ambassador from the United States will play an important role in this work, in addition to his ongoing duties in representing US positions to the world. So, do we want someone who is going to work to make the UN more effective, or someone whose aim is destroy the UN and replace it with a sort of Student Council in Manhattan, a toy-government debate club for the kids, completely under the thumb by Principal Bush? The latter is the UN reform agenda of the radical right.
I actually think the notion of Bush senior as UN Ambassador is an excellent idea; other pro-UN Republicans like Scowcroft would be equally solid choices.
Read:
here,
here,
and here.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Apr 27, 2005 5:58:30 PM
Nations run by unelected strongmen are treated as equal to democracies with civil liberties.
Too. Easy. To. Respond.
Posted by: ahem | Apr 27, 2005 6:00:47 PM
Many of these posts depend strongly on what you view as the purpose of the UN. Many seem to think of it as a dysfunctional World Senate. I think of it more as a clearinghouse for international treaties. It is useful to have a place with delegates from countries all over the world to get together in one place and talk. But it doesn't really have a lot of power to enforce most of its decisions upon countries that don't want to play along with any particular one. For instance, no one has to sign on to a resolution on, say, a bill for giving women certain rights, and even if a country does and then violates them, there is little the UN can do.
But the UN is a useful body nonetheless, mostly for the coordination of humanitarian efforts and the occassional police action. Fighting wars under the aegis of the UN is especially useful diplomatically, since it makes the perception one of the world wanting something for universal reasons, instead of just a few countries fighting under more narrow interests.
Can the UN be improved? Yes, most definitely. For one, the veto-holding permanent membership of the Security Council, where the stick-wielding power of the UN lies, could stand some reform.
Why? The composition of the Security Council makes it very hard to get everyone to agree to go to war. More importantly, I like the idea of the US having a big say in what happens there. I am liberal, but I am also (generally) an America firster, because I am American. The liberal comes in how I think is an effective way to put America first.
In fact, one of my biggest beefs with GWB is how much of our power has been squandered on ineffective, unecessary or counterproductive policies. We are, IMHO, extremely vulnerable to all kinds of bad things happening, and have fewer and fewer resources to respond the longer he stays in office. But this does not mean we should just give up some of our remaining power in the world just because we don't like the way this president uses it. We have been weakened enough.
Posted by: Kiril | Apr 27, 2005 6:01:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
