“United Nations,” “International Community,” and other oxymorons

“This provocation underscores the need for action–not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons,” Mr. Obama said. “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. [Barack Obama, April 6, 2009]

It will soon be official: the rules are not binding, violations will not be punished, and our words mean nothing.

It seems incredible that any American statesman still needs one more object lesson in the worthlessness of the United Nations. We’re going to have that object lesson today, when the Security Council reacts to North Korea’s premeditated violation of two Security Council resolutions with a “presidential statement,” which is in effect the “very angry letter” of Team America satire. As Wikipedia tells us and John Bolton warned us, a presidential statement is not legally binding. It is what the Security Council does when it does not agree because the members do not all share a sincere interest in addressing the violation.

It’s also interesting to reflect on this first great failure of the Obama Administration to succeed in a forum whose importance we were told George W. Bush erred grievously by ignoring. By contrast, Bolton, Bush’s alleged high priest of unilateralism had a far better track record in ramming resolutions through that body than Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, or Joe “Smart Diplomacy” Biden:

US Vice President Joe Biden Tuesday demanded China and Russia get tough with North Korea, threatening the Stalinist state with new sanctions after its weekend missile test.

Following the failure of the United States and its allies to procure UN Security Council condemnation of the test, Biden said pressure should be applied through six-party talks designed to halt North Korea’s nuclear drive.

“What I’d like to see is a strong condemnation and a united effort on the part of the Chinese, Russians in the six-party talks to say, enough is enough, there will be greater sanctions, we will squeeze down even harder on North Korea,” he said in an interview with CNN. [AFP]

As a result, Bolton’s old resolutions will be all Obama now has to rely on, unless it opts to exercise some of the other available options.

One other talking point during the last two campaigns was that Bush had needlessly alienated our allies. While I’d question the extent to which several of the oft-noted examples still qualify as allies, an alliance is only as good as the unity of interests. Our interests were aligned with those of Japan, and Japan had looked to our president for a strong response following a threat to Japan’s security. Japan badly wanted a strong new resolution to condemn North Korea, but instead to increasing the pressure on China and Russia to get it — ie., doing whatever John Bolton was willing and able to do that Susan Rice isn’t — America folded, leaving Japan isolated and forced to accede the following day. If you were a Japanese statesman today, wouldn’t you be rethinking the value of nuclear weapons?

On paper, this new non-binding presidential statement sounds a lot like what Security Council resolutions 1695 and 1718 should have been since 2006, when Russia, China, and our own State Department undermined it (and for what the State Department did, George W. Bush is entirely to blame):

The statement calls for freezing the assets of companies or organizations involved in transactions related to the import or export of missiles, nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the diplomats said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations took place behind closed doors.

China and Russia, the North Koreans’ strongest allies, refused to go along with a new resolution, which the United States was also seeking. But while Japan kept insisting on a resolution, the U.S. indicated it would also accept a strong presidential statement from the council, the diplomats said.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice emerged from the nearly two-hour meeting saying they had agreed on the draft statement and would meet later Saturday afternoon with the other council members to give them the text.

“We think the text sends a clear message,” Rice said, without disclosing details. [Fox News]

The irony appears to be completely unintentional, and the message is, “You act with impunity.” Just ask the North Koreans:

A Pyongyang mass rally was held at Kim Il Sung Square on Wednesday to hail the successful launch of the satellite Kwangmyongsong-2. Attending the rally were senior party, army and state officials and at least 100,000 citizens from all walks of life in the capital. Choe Thae Bok, alternate member of the Political Bureau and secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, made a report at the rally.

The reporter said that the successful satellite launch marked a great auspicious event of the nation as it demonstrated the dignity and invincible might of Songun Korea and a historic event which heralded the victory in the cause of building a great prosperous powerful nation.

He said:

The satellite launch clearly showed the might of the Juche-based industry the Korean people have built by the sweat of their brows for several decades under the leadership of the great leaders and the great party and the scientific and technological level of the country. It also proved that their cause of building a thriving nation is sure to triumph.

The satellite launch meant a gun salute heralding the advent of the era of a thriving nation at a time when all the people are out in the general advance to open the gate to a great prosperous powerful socialist nation in 2012, the centenary of birth of President Kim Il Sung. Herein lies the great significance of the launch.

The DPRK succeeded in launching the satellite despite the enemies’ unprecedented political and military pressure and desperate obstructions. [Korean Central News Agency, Pyongyang]

One positive aspect: this episode had already begun to erode the silent majority’s view of the United Nations before the U.N.’s latest failure was confirmed. That’s brings us all one small step closer to the gradual removal of the U.N. as an obstacle to/substitute for any serious response to global security threats.

Just 27% of U.S. voters regard the United Nations as an ally of the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Seventeen percent (17%) say the U.N. is an enemy of the United States, and 49% see it as somewhere in between an ally and an enemy. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of political liberals classify the U.N. as America’s ally, but just 15% of conservatives agree.

Still, overall, 60% believe America should continue to participate in the United Nations. This is down six points from a month ago. Last month’s survey was conducted just before the head of the U.N. called the United States “a deadbeat” for not always paying its dues on time. The United States pays nearly one-quarter of the U.N.’s $5-billion annual budget.

Twenty-one percent (21%) now say America should not participate in the U.N., and 19% are undecided. Fifty percent (50%) of voters have a favorable view of the U.N. while 45% hold an unfavorable opinion. [Rasmussen Reports, April 9, 2009]

Whether this represents a long-term decline in the U.N.’s support among American voters isn’t clear. That level of support wasn’t especially good beforehand, and no one is tracking U.S. views of the U.N. using the same questions over a longer term. I look forward to a time when conservative candidates actively campaign for a gradual withdrawal from the U.N., with the exception of its humanitarian relief operations, and its eventual replacement by a league of representative, accountable governments.

Related: To Robert Joseph, this all looks drearily familiar.

Also Related: Sit down for this one — the International Telecommunications Union confirms that no North Korean satellite reached orbit.