Remember the tsunami?

[Tigermike 3,054]

Bolton's sin is telling truth about system

May 15, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST 

Remember the tsunami? Big story, 300,000 dead; America and other rich countries too "stingy" in their response; government ministers from every capital on earth announcing on CNN every 10 minutes more and more millions and gazillions. It was in all the papers for a week or two, but not a lot of water under the bridge since then, and as a result this interesting statistic may not have caught your eye:

Five hundred containers, representing one-quarter of all aid sent to Sri Lanka since the tsunami hit on Dec. 26, are still sitting on the dock in Colombo, unclaimed or unprocessed.

At the Indonesian port of Medan, 1,500 containers of aid are still sitting on the dock.

Four months ago, did you chip in to the tsunami relief effort? Did your company? A Scottish subsidiary of the Body Shop donated a 40-foot container of "Lemon Squidgit" and other premium soap, which arrived at Medan in January and has languished there ever since because of "incomplete paperwork,'' according to Indonesian customs officials.

Well, those soapy Scots were winging it -- like so many of us, eager to help but too naive to understand that, no matter the scale of devastation visited upon a hapless developing nation, its obstructionist bureaucracy will emerge from the rubble unscathed. Yet, among the exhaustive examples of wasted Western generosity unearthed by the Financial Times, what struck me was not the free-lancers but the permanent floating crap game of international high-rollers who couldn't penetrate the labyrinth of Indonesian paperwork.

Diageo sent eight 20-foot containers of drinking water via the Red Cross. "We sent it directly to the Red Cross in order to get around the red tape," explained its Sydney office. It arrived in Medan in January and it's still there. The Indonesian Red Cross lost the paperwork.

UNICEF, the U.N. children's agency, sent 14 ambulances to Indonesia, and they took two months to clear customs. Terrible as it was in its awesome fury, the tsunami was in the end transnational business as usual.

Which brings me to the John Bolton nomination process, which is taking so long you'd think the U.S. Senate was run by Indonesian customs inspectors. Writing of near-Ambassador Bolton's difficulty getting his paperwork stamped by the Foreign Relations Committee, National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''

Very true. Sen. George Voinovich, one of those "maverick Republicans" the press goes goo-goo over, seems to believe, as Cliff May puts it, "that the problem is more American 'unilateralism' than U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude."

On the face of it, this shouldn't be a difficult choice, even for as uncurious a squish as Voinovich. Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed.

But none of that matters. As the grotesque charade Voinovich and his Democrat chums have inflicted on us demonstrates, all that the so-called "multilateralists" require is that we be polite and deferential to the transnational establishment regardless of how useless it is. What matters in global diplomacy is that you pledge support rather than give any. Thus, Bolton would have no problem getting nominated as U.N. ambassador if he were more like Paul Martin.

Who? Well, he's prime minister of Canada. And in January, after the tsunami hit, he flew into Sri Lanka to pledge millions and millions and millions in aid. Not like that heartless George W. Bush back at the ranch in Texas. Why, Prime Minister Martin walked along the ravaged coast of Kalumnai and was, reported Canada's CTV network, "visibly shaken." President Bush might well have been shaken, but he wasn't visible, and in the international compassion league, that's what counts. So Martin boldly committed Canada to giving $425 million to tsunami relief. "Mr. Paul Martin Has Set A Great Example For The Rest Of The World Leaders!" raved the LankaWeb news service.

You know how much of that $425 million has been spent so far? Fifty thousand dollars -- Canadian. That's about 40 grand in U.S. dollars. The rest isn't tied up in Indonesian bureaucracy, it's back in Ottawa. But, unlike horrible "unilateralist" America, Canada enjoys a reputation as the perfect global citizen, renowned for its commitment to the U.N. and multilateralism. And on the beaches of Sri Lanka, that and a buck'll get you a strawberry daiquiri. Canada's contribution to tsunami relief is objectively useless and rhetorically fraudulent.

This is the way the transnational jet-set works when the entire world is in complete agreement and acting in perfect harmony. Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.

When rent-a-quote senators claim to be pro-U.N. or multilateralist, the tsunami operation is what they have in mind -- that when something bad happens the United States should commit to working through the approved transnational bureaucracies and throw even more "resources" at them, even though nothing will happen (Sri Lanka), millions will be stolen (Oil for Food), children will get raped (U.N. peacekeeping operations) and hundreds of thousands will die (Sudan).

John Bolton's sin is to have spoken the truth about the international system rather than the myths to which photo-oppers like the Canadian prime minister defer. As a consequence, he's being treated like a container of Western aid being processed by Indonesian customs. Customs Inspector Joe Biden and Junior Clerk Voinovich spent two months trying to come up with reasons why Bolton's paperwork is inadequate and demanding to know why he hasn't filled out his RU1-2. An RU1-2 is the official international bureaucrat's form reassuring the global community that he'll continue to peddle all the polite fictions, no matter how self-evidently risible they are. John Bolton isn't one, too. That's why we need him.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn15.html

[TexasTiger 13,028]

National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''

Why is that an either/or? Does any reasonable person think that both couldn't benefit from reform?

Very true. Sen. George Voinovich, one of those "maverick Republicans" the press goes goo-goo over, seems to believe, as Cliff May puts it, "that the problem is more American 'unilateralism' than U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude."

Not true -- SURPRISE!-- Voinovich seems to think Bolton needs reform because he's an assh@le, not because he wants to improve the UN. Voinovich doesn't think Bolton has the skills to do the job.

[Tigermike 3,054]

National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''

Why is that an either/or? Does any reasonable person think that both couldn't benefit from reform?

159784[/snapback]

I'm not sure if you missed the point or are attempting to misdirect.

Very true. Sen. George Voinovich, one of those "maverick Republicans" the press goes goo-goo over, seems to believe, as Cliff May puts it, "that the problem is more American 'unilateralism' than U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude."

Not true -- SURPRISE!-- Voinovich seems to think Bolton needs reform because he's an assh@le, not because he wants to improve the UN. Voinovich doesn't think Bolton has the skills to do the job.

159784[/snapback]

Very true!

I can give many examples of people who were a**holes but still got the job done.

Several that come to mind from entirely different fields, General George Patton, Ty Cobb.

What you have are those who want to blame the United States for all wrongs and those who don't. Those who almost deify the United Nations and those who don't. Those who think the UN is corrupt from top to bottom and needs reforming and those who don't. Those who think the President should be able to appoint someone to the UN who will put the United States first and those who don't.

Those who seemingly have no problem with U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude, and those who do.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''

Why is that an either/or? Does any reasonable person think that both couldn't benefit from reform?

159784[/snapback]

I'm not sure if you missed the point or are attempting to misdirect.

Very true. Sen. George Voinovich, one of those "maverick Republicans" the press goes goo-goo over, seems to believe, as Cliff May puts it, "that the problem is more American 'unilateralism' than U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude."

Not true -- SURPRISE!-- Voinovich seems to think Bolton needs reform because he's an assh@le, not because he wants to improve the UN. Voinovich doesn't think Bolton has the skills to do the job.

159784[/snapback]

Very true!

I can give many examples of people who were a**holes but still got the job done.

Several that come to mind from entirely different fields, General George Patton, Ty Cobb.

What you have are those who want to blame the United States for all wrongs and those who don't. Those who almost deify the United Nations and those who don't. Those who think the UN is corrupt from top to bottom and needs reforming and those who don't. Those who think the President should be able to appoint someone to the UN who will put the United States first and those who don't.

Those who seemingly have no problem with U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude, and those who do.

159786[/snapback]

Tigermike, the short version: Either support this particular guy for the job or you support corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude. That view encapuslates the totalitarian extremism of the Far Right which is out of step with values and principles that made America great.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I can give many examples of people who were a**holes but still got the job done.  Several that come to mind from entirely different fields, General George Patton, Ty Cobb.

Generals can command and punish those who are insubordinate. Baseball players must simply perform. Diplomats have to persuade. You don't change the UN by merely recognizing its flaws and insulting people. If you just want a guy to get alot of press with his comments, Bolton may be your guy. If you want someone to reform it, you need someone with strong diplomatic skills who understands what the problems are and can garner support to make changes.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Rwanda: UN Failure in the 1990s...

From Amnesty International: The Dead can no longer be counted in Rwanda 1997

And the UN did nothing....

Rwanda has remembered over one million people who lost their lives in the 1994 Genocide

LInk

Day 100

An estimated 800,000 Rwandans have been killed

From PBS

UN Failure in Sudan in the 1990's and 2000s...

Friday, December 11, 1998 Published at 00:40 GMT

World: Africa

Millions dead in Sudan civil war

Millions dead in the Sudan...

U.N. puts Darfur dead at 70,000

From CNN's Lauren Rivera

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 Posted: 7:39 PM EST (0039 GMT)

From CNN...

Sounds to me like the UN needs many good swift kicks to the teeth. But maybe what we need while these folks die is another 17 resolutions that are ignored by the perps and several dozen more bribed UN officials. Bush frees Iraq and Afghanistan, the UN let millions die in Africa and still does nothing.

[Tigermike 3,054]

I can give many examples of people who were a**holes but still got the job done.  Several that come to mind from entirely different fields, General George Patton, Ty Cobb.

Diplomats have to persuade. You don't change the UN by merely recognizing its flaws and insulting people. If you just want a guy to get alot of press with his comments, Bolton may be your guy. If you want someone to reform it, you need someone with strong diplomatic skills who understands what the problems are and can garner support to make changes.

159809[/snapback]

You say that diplomats have to persuade like that is all there is to the job description. Is the UN ambassador selected because he disagrees with the Presidents foreign policy? Should a sitting President appoint someone who would put the interest of France, Germany and/or Belgium ahead of the United States? Should he be chosen because he would acquiescence to corruption at the UN? Maybe he should be chosen because the president thinks he would give a wink and a nod to Sudan being on the Human Rights Council. Or would not scoff at Libya being on a anti terrorism council.

Personally I think the UN needs someone to look them in the eye and say listen you sorry __ __ ers it's time for you to be what you were intended to be. It's time for you to make the people who practice genocide accountable for their actions. It's time that UN officials not be violators of human rights around the globe. I also fail to see why the libs are so in love with the United Nations.

When you speak of garnering support, did you mean support from all those folks who profited from the oil for food scam?