Friday, October 01, 2004

The Non-Action of the United Nations

I had an interesting conversation today with someone who would have liked to see President Bush make a better statement on the UN. Specifically, he would have liked to see the UN get beat down for being the All-Talk-Do-Nothing-Now-but-Complain-Later institution that it is.

I mentioned last night that John Kerry accused President Bush of not seeking enough United Nations involvement and the favor of Kofi Annan.
But let's step away from the current situation in Iraq and think about what the UN has done in the world lately...

1. Thousands of people were dying in Bosnia, The UN did nothing.
2. Thousands of people died in Uganda. The UN did nothing
3. 50,000 people have died in Darfur. The UN is doing nothing.

The UN talked a lot about all of these things, but did nothing. It was the United States who finally took action in Bosnia, and we did it without UN "permission" or support or a coalition or whatever you want to call it. And I would guess that the UN is glad we did that, because since someone did something about it, the UN didn't have to bother defending itself against doing nothing.
Uganda, same thing.

And it's quite clear that when someone takes action in Darfur, it's gonna be the United States, not the United Nations.

What should President Bush have said last night? He should have said that 3,000 people died in America, and the UN did nothing. He wasn't going to wait for 50,000 people to die in America while the UN just kept doing nothing.

That is the President's position, whether he said it at the right time last night or not, it's true. Senator Kerry is, as Hugh called him, "UN John". [And, Duane says "John Kerry...if you like him, you'll really love the United Nations."]

Kerry is a politician not a leader. He's well versed and can talk and talk and talk, but he's not experienced with taking action and leading the country to victory.