April 15, 2005
The UN Outlaws Nuclear Terrorism: And The World Is Safer?
There is the old story about the fellow sitting on the curb of the street hitting himself in the head with a hammer. A friend walks up and says "Why are you hitting yourself like that?"
"Because it feels so good when I stop," said the fellow.
Useless actions that makes one feel good. Yeah, that's the ticket and once again the UN makes as much sense. In yesterday's Washington Post we are reliably informed that the
"The 191-member U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday unanimously approved a treaty outlawing the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists and their supporters."Oh yes, I feel safer already. The UN General Assembly wastes time on passing a treaty that it has absolutely no intention of enforcing let alone monitoring.
According to the WaPo:
"The treaty, which governments will begin signing at the General Assembly session in September, criminalizes the possession or use of radioactive material or a nuclear device "to cause death or serious bodily injury." It also makes it a crime to use a nuclear device to damage property or the environment or to attack a nuclear facility."The "treaty" will require 22 member states to ratify before it becomes "law."
"It's a good thing" that they are making a concerted effort to grapple with the threat of nuclear terrorism, said Charles D. Ferguson II, an expert on terrorism at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the bottom line is, it's not going to stop it."Let me repeat that: "It's a good thing..." but "The bottom line is, it's not going to stop it." Oh, yes, I feel safer already.
Does it not strike any of the august members of the UN that a member state that supports terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, North Korea anyone?) has no intention of signing the treaty? Or, if they do, they have no intention of following the treaty they signed?
One only has to look at the sterling performance of the UN in regards to Security Council resolutions re: Saddam's Iraq, Sudanese slaughter, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc., etc. to recognize the futility of passing laws that no one intends to enforce or even pay attention to.
Passing a law against looking crosseyed at transvestite girth challenged elephants makes as much sense. Actually, that law would make more sense.
If the UN wants to ACT like a REAL United Nations, lets start with the things it CAN do. Clean up the corruption, fire Kofi, stop the slaugter in Darfur, stop letting France and China ignore Sudan because they have extensive oil interests in Sudan, etc. Then maybe they will have the credibility and the juevos to back up their useless, senseless propagandistic "treaties."
Dr. Pat Santy over at Dr.Sanity says that she won't be surprised if
"When the UN actually does something--no matter how feeble, even like this example where they passed a resolution--all you have to do is just wait for the other shoe to fall. Soon they will be declaring that along with Israel, the United States meets their definition of being a "terrorist" and must unilaterally disarm."Dr. Pat, I won't be surprised at all; I promise!
Tip of the Chapeaux to Dr. Sanity
Posted by GM Roper at April 15, 2005 06:32 AM | TrackBackWhile some sub-sets of the overall United Nations may do some good, it appears that this "august" body is about as useful as the League of Nations was...only the UN is more corrupt. "Diplomats" (read spies, political hacks and free-loaders) converge in New York and number of other posh capitals of the world, to conduct business. What, indeed, is their business? What do they do? Make speeches. Pass resolutions. Without enforcement, laws (resolutions) are meaningless. On occassion, troops (what are "troops"? They range from highly disciplined and trained military forces from some countries to uniformed rabble that may well more more dangerous than helpful) are sent to assist in gently pushing warring peoples, tribal groups, etc toward peace. Does it work? Largely not. Thus, we return to the value of the UN. It really seems a very, very expensive platform for nations (and there is another joke, what are "nations"? What does one have to do to qualify as a real nation? Anything?) to take the dais to hector, posture and drone. Maybe the UN has some value, but tis hard to see. Maybe, at minimum they ought change their name as they are hardly United. This might be a good first step towards being more truthful, something lacking since its inception in San Francisco so many years ago.
Posted by tad at April 15, 2005 07:45 AM
This is hilarious! Think the terrorists will sit up and take note now?!
-Jack
Posted by jack at April 15, 2005 03:31 PM
It does not take a massive leap of logic, nor an over-active imagination to picture the United Nations in terms of the pre-World War II diplomatic sluggishness of the League of Nations. Who are these people? No doubt, honorable ideologists who are over-taken by what the world ought to be, as opposed to realists who understand that we do not live in a perfectâ€â€Âbut indeed a dangerous world. They seem not to have learned the lessons of history; appeasement encourages tyrants, inaction is a predecessor to violence, and indecision is a decision of dire consequences. Once again, the most important social service a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free. In my view, UN performance does not justify their expenditures.
Posted by HB at April 15, 2005 03:45 PM
Well, I assume that the first (and of course only) prosecution will be of GWB and Rumsfeld for possession with intent of nuclear devices designed "to cause death or serious bodily injury." Hey, they will probably also indict Wolfowitz, just because he is a Joooooo.
Go Bolton!
Posted by Toby at April 16, 2005 08:19 AM
