A Word from London

 

Herbert London

      Herbert London is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Why the UN Cannot Be Reformed

It is often said that even though the UN is a flawed institution, it can be reformed with appropriate guidance. Based on recent evidence, it appears the UN can never and will never reform. Let me explain why this is the case.

First, the most egregious violations of human rights such as the slaughter of black Muslims in the Sudan is virtually ignored by the UN Despite U.S. overtures for sanctions, the UN has balked. On the other hand, for instance, the French foreign minister recently has flatly dismissed claims that a campaign of ethnic cleansing is being waged in Darfur. Pakistan and China have opposed any UN resolution that would directly criticize the Sudanese government. Egypt’s ambassador to Sudan charges Washington with exaggerating what some have called “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” in order to discredit an Islamic government.

Even when it was clear that Saddam Hussein had engaged in brutalizing his own people and engaging in human rights violations the UN avoided the issue and was never able or willing to us its power and international influence to save millions of innocents, once again.

Second, even those states which are putatively American allies vote consistently against the United States. Kuwait and Qatar vote against the U.S. 67 percent of the time. Morocco and the United Arab Emirates vote against the U.S. 70 percent of the time. Jordan and Tunisia 71 percent of the time, Saudi Arabia 73 percent; Yemen and Oman 74 percent, Egypt, the nation which receives enormous largess from the U.S., votes against 79 percent of the time. And India votes against the U.S. 81 percent of the time.

Third, the composition of the Security Council reflects the globe circa 1945; it does not reflect the actual conditions of the moment. France, even if one were to partially reflect the Chirac vision of the nation, is not a world power. It is actually decreasing in population due to demographic factors and has been a declining economic influence in Europe. Its prominent role in the UN is therefore an anachronism that should be addressed. Of course that won’t happen.

Fourth, when the International Court of Justice (an arm of the UN) ruled against Israel’s security fence, it denied Israel the right of self-defense against non-state actors such as the Palestinians, who evidently are unable to control their own terrorists. This is not only contrary to international law, it is contrary to the Security Council’s post-9/11 resolution which specifically stated a nation can defend itself against non-state terrorism.

What is on display here, is a blatant anti-human rights policy, contrary to what the United Nations is supposed to stand for. The UN in 1945, which called for fair and even-handed adjudication of differences among states, has become a center for injustice and under the label of a “superior goal.”

Fifth, the “oil for food” scandal demonstrates that corruption reaches to the very top of the organization, the Secretariat’s office. Kofi Annan’s resistance to a thorough investigation speaks volumes about his leadership and the extent to which the organization has been compromised.

Last, perhaps most notably, tyranny and forms of democracy do not mix. Those nations with a concern for the consent of the governed look at the world differently from tyrants. Tyrants aren’t prepared to reflect the will of their own people; they seek power and the perks of privilege. The UN offers cover from the atrocities leveled at their own people. Since value judgments aren’t made about violations of human rights, tyrants can literally get away with murder and still be secure in the knowledge the UN will offer legitimacy. After all, every nation in the General Assembly has one vote and all nations are treated as equals.

For these reasons the UN will not change. In fact, considering the direction it has taken, conditions will worsen and the defense of human rights and justice in the world will be imperiled. The UN is not merely a talking club we can tolerate, it is a pernicious organization which reflexively challenges the interests of justice worldwide. Reform the UN? It’s time to get real and realize it is an institution that is unreformable. It needs to be replaced.

Fighting a War for Survival

It had been assumed by many that with the end of the Cold War barbarism would have been a condition civilized people had left behind, a relic of a bygone era. But like so many predictions of contemporary society, this one is wrong.

After 9/11 we have entered a period in which our enemy, radical Islam, is out to destroy America. As Osama bin Laden noted in 1998, Muslims have an obligation to kill Americans.

The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies -- civilian and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.

In addition, there is the belief among radical Islamists that the infidels, namely Christians and Jews, must be forced to submit to Islam or die. “Our struggle is not about land or water,” the late Ayatollah Khomeini said in 1980, “it is about bringing by force if necessary, the whole of mankind onto the right path.”

“We must keep in mind the nature of the enemy,” President Bush told graduates at the U.S. Air force Academy in June. “No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it.”

The predators have returned to the world stage. This time the actors are not from one nation nor is the enemy race based; the killers we face are shadowy, supranational and faith obsessed. The methods they employ are suicide bombings, beheadings and mutilation. If they can get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will be used. There is simply no limit to the barbarity.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times argues there is a better than even money chance a nuclear device will be set off killing 500,000 people or more. The 9/11 Commission report contends such an event is not merely a possibility, but a probability.

Despite an understandable desire to deny this horrendous scenario, it must be confronted. Should we be unable to do so, or find that the sacrifice is too much of a burden, savagery will assuredly reign and the world will relapse into barbarism.

This is not an exaggerated claim since the threat was borne out on 9/11, and even before in the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole, the Marine installation in Saudi Arabia, the 1993 explosion at the World Trade Center and dozens of other violent episodes.

Despite all of the effort to apply reason to these events, they defy rational analysis. Our new enemy is out to destroy us and no matter what rationalization is applied, this one fact limns the reality of the moment.

Countering an enemy filled with zealotry and potentially in possession of nuclear weapons is a challenge different from any we’ve confronted in the past. Our open society is vulnerable to attack. In fact, while precautions are being taken, there isn’t any way to provide 100 percent assurance against terrorist violence.

Hence intelligence is critical. We must be able to watch, listen and anticipate the evil deed over the horizon. We must realize that in their desire to sacrifice human life without reservation in order to serve their radical vision, every belief we value is in jeopardy.

There are some well-meaning critics who contend that every step taken to ferret out radical Islamic plots not only “dehumanizes” the enemy but dehumanizes ourselves. The ACLU in its effort to protect civil liberties seems to shortchange the threat we now face. It is obvious that in the freedom-security equation, some freedom may be temporarily reduced in order to thwart the dangers that lurk in our midst. President Lincoln, after all, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

In my judgment, for example, the Patriot Act is a small price to pay for bolstering intelligence operations which could forestall attack. It should be pointed out to libertarians who superordinate liberty, that before liberty can be entertained, survival must be assured. Of what value is liberty, if civilization as we know it cannot survive?

My major gripe with those who promote civil liberties to the exclusion of other concerns is their lack of realism about the enemy. Surely we can take al Qaeda spokesmen at their word. What they say is that war is necessary, democracy is evil, science is misguided and Islam must prevail even if Armageddon is fostered.

We are a long way from a “police state,” which is glibly asserted as a criticism after every action taken by the Attorney General in the war against terrorists. Moreover, I am all for glorifying liberty which this great nation has provided its citizens in ample measure. Yet as a prerequisite for our future, we must recognize the threat that exists and in the process, glorify life even as we glorify liberty.

Still it is not enough to say glorify life; there are specific measures that must be taken to thwart possible terrorist acts in our nation. The wall of separation erected between law enforcement and national security agents must be shattered.

Second, the human intelligence assets -- emasculated by the Church Commission -- must be restored. Spying is a nasty, but necessary, business in a world as dangerous as ours.

Third, preemption is a critical feature of prevention. We must use every legal means at our disposal to undermine terrorist cells.

Fourth, we should encourage the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to deport non-citizens who foster violent activity. It is noteworthy that more than 80 percent of mosques preach anti-American dogma and some actively promote terrorism.

Fifth, despite a reluctance to consider profiling -- understandable since racial and ethnic differentiation is appropriately frowned upon --  it should be noted that 80-year-old grandmothers from Des Moines haven’t been identified as terrorist “sleepers.” Yet remarkably they are treated in precisely the same fashion at airports as those carrying Saudi Arabian passports. This defies common sense and introduces a degree of unnecessary risk.

Last, this war is different from others since our enemy is intent solely on destruction. Rather than rely on Clauswitz for guidance, in this war De Sade is the exemplar.

In many respects the radical Islamic response to modernity is like the Hieronymus Bosch painting “The Garden of Earthly Delights” which depicts a hell of obscurity and insanity, a world without reason or hope. Either the world submits to Islam, or the world is turned into the hell of destruction. In radical Islam religion is “flesh and blood” and unless one submits, death is the only recourse. Hence a persistent refusal to use power against this threat must be overcome. We don’t need martyrs to survive, but we do need vigilance, intelligence and legal mechanisms that realistically recognize the threat we are now facing.

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Convention

It has been clear for some time that national conventions hold little suspense. The delegates know who the presidential and vice presidential candidates will be. All that remains is the effort to rally the “troops” and leave an impression on the voting public.

In every sense this is a staged event. The speakers try to leave a lasting impression of rhetorical skill and the entertainers are there for relief from the speeches. It is all rather unnecessary.

Yet the one condition on display is the partisanship from the so-called dispassionate members of the press corps. At the Democratic Convention in Boston, the press literally gushed over the speeches by Bill and Hill and when it came to former president Carter these presumptively objective reporters could not contain themselves.

Carter, interestingly, has been converted into an icon by the press in large part because his position on most matters is consistent with those who cover the news.

For example, CNN’s Aaron Brown and reporter Joe Johns argued that the “greatness” of President Carter was on display when he bashed U.S. foreign policy as “extremist” and “alienating.” “To many people, he has improved with age,” Brown noted. Johns recounted how Georgia Congressman John Lewis said, “Jimmy Carter is simply the elder statesman of the party, an honest man, truthful.”

For many people, these observations may seem accurate. But there is more to the Carter story than these comments suggest.

President Carter vainly and opportunistically campaigned for the Nobel Peace Prize in an unabashedly shameless manner. When he finally did receive the award, he used the occasion to criticize the Bush foreign policy, a move designed to ingratiate himself with his European hosts.

Even President Clinton expressed annoyance at Carter’s arrogance. Despite any formal executive approval, Carter went to North Korea and expressed sympathy for this tyrannical regime beseeching the American government to engage in concessions for Kim Jung I1.

Of course, when Kim indicated he would violate all accords with the U.S., notwithstanding his pledge to Carter, the erstwhile president was conspicuously silent. After embarrassing the U.S. government, President Carter pretended he was acting in the best interests of the U.S.

In some ways, Carter is a pathetic figure eager for recognition and eager to rewrite the wrongs of his presidency. Since his failed presidency, President Carter has engaged in covering his tracks with moralistic proclamations of every conceivable variety. Most significantly, he has become an attack dog challenging the Bush administration at every turn.

It is, of course, somewhat ironic that President Carter has seen fit to criticize the Bush economic program since he was the president who was at least partially responsible for “stagflation” and who seemed powerless to address double digit inflation.

He was also the president who talked about national malaise which he has converted most recently into the dawning of a new day -- under Democratic leadership.

It is instructive that his Convention speech made specific reference to the plight of the Palestinians, but not one word was uttered about Israel facing suicide bombers. This from a man who fashions himself as a champion of democracy and international cooperation.

Needless to say, my own view of President Carter may be a reflection of partisan politics. But when I hear the unadorned praise from newscasters with nary a word of criticism, I wonder about the partisanship of supposedly nonpartisan sources.

I realize that national conventions are now cheerleading moments, but must the reporters be cheerleaders as well? President Carter may indeed be an icon for some, but there is a side to his history worth noting that is different from the prevailing tune. All I want to see is a little balance.

With press accounts offering nothing but praise for the Democratic party, anything but balance is what I should expect.     *

“Whosoever is out of patience is out of possession of his mind, body and soul.” --Sir Francis Bacon