March 2, 2006
Thrashing the UN
I'm no John Bircher, but I'm really scratching my head at the necessity or the utility of the United States as part of the United Nations lately.
Marc Steyn is obviously doing the same thing and goes after them in Hilldale College's Imprimis pretty hard.
- What should replace the UN? Some people talk about a “caucus of the democracies.” But I’d like to propose a more radical suggestion: nothing. In the war on terror, America’s most important relationships have been not transnational but bilateral: Australia’s John Howard didn’t dispatch troops to Iraq because the Aussies and the Yanks belong to the same international talking shop; Tony Blair’s reliability on war and terror isn’t because of the European Union but in spite of it. These relationships are meaningful precisely because they’re not the product of formal transnational bureaucracies.
It's quite a long read, but most excellent.
Covers Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur, the Tsunami, rapes, Oil for Food....
United Nations Posted by AlexC at March 2, 2006 8:17 PM
The Steyn piece was great. (Imprimis is a free subscription in hardcopy that I heartily endorse.
HE is dead on about the bilateral and smaller groups. I will go with the internationalists enough to suggest that we keep the UN but I would strip it of most of its budget and all of its power.
Posted by: jk at March 3, 2006 10:13 AM | What do you think? [1]