John McCain's Secretive Plan to "Kill the UN"

Does John McCain have a "hidden agenda" to "kill the UN"? That's what the man who devised McCain's big set-piece foreign policy proposal says -- and he's delighted it is sailing silently through the presidential election campaign towards success.

This story begins with a Republican presidential candidate who, despite the hype, doesn't seem to know much about foreign affairs. McCain recently talked at length about problems on the "Iraq/Pakistan border". The countries are a thousand miles apart. Asked how to deal with Darfur, he mused about his desire to "bring pressure on the government of Somalia" Uh -- it's Sudan, Senator McCain. He keeps expressing his desire to build up US relations with Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed for fifteen years.

But McCain does know one thing: he doesn't like the United Nations. He championed George Bush's appointment of John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN -- precisely because Bolton scorns the UN as "irrelevant" and "a twilight zone". He even announced "there is no such thing as the United Nations." It was like appointing Marilyn Manson as Ambassador to the Vatican. This is part of a long seam of thinking on the American right: they opposed the UN's creation by Franklin Roosevelt as an unacceptable fetter on American power, and have never been properly reconciled to it. Republican congresses have refused to authorise US dues to the UN -- so there is now a backlog of $2.8bn outstanding.

Yet McCain cannot oppose the UN outright -- because the American people support it so passionately. Contrary to the yokel-myth, a typical opinion poll -- by Global Public Opinion -- just found that 64 percent of Americans think the UN is doing a good job, compared to just 28 percent who support George Bush. Some 72 percent of Americans want the UN to play a bigger role in their foreign policy.

So McCain has decided to build up an innocuous-sounding alternative called a 'League of Democracies'. It would be an alliance of countries the US labels democratic that can be used to legitimate US military actions. Charles Krauthammer, the conservative journalist who invented the plan, says: "What I like about it is, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's about listening and joining with allies... except the idea here, which McCain can't say but I can, is to essentially kill the UN. Nobody's going to walk out of the UN. There's a lot of emotional attachment to it in the United States. How do you kill it? You create a parallel institution." Gradually -- over decades -- McCain hopes it would make the UN wither away.

Any response needs to start by admitting the UN has serious imperfections. Its structure is absurdly antiquated, with the permanent members of the Security Council frozen as the winners of the Second World War. The Human Rights Commission became an obscenity, offering places to Sudan and Saudi Arabia. There have been some horrible scandals in the past decade: UN peacekeepers who commit sexual abuse still aren't properly investigated; some of them cut corrupt deals with the murderous Congolese militias they were supposed to stop; and Kofi Annan's son Kojo was involved in some dodgy dealings. Those of us who support the UN should be more outraged by these failures than anyone else.

But the US government has also committed horrible abuses and been riddled with corruption -- and nobody suggests the solution is to abolish it. No: it is to make it live up to its greatest ideals.

In addition to these real flaws, the UN is too often used as a bright blue punch-bag for any old complaint about the state of the world. For example, the UN is routinely blamed for not intervening in Burma or Zimbabwe or Georgia -- but the UN has no army of its own; it is only as good as its members. Blaming the UN for these failures is like blaming Wembley Stadium when your football team loses a match. The UN's positive achievements are almost never mentioned. It was the UN vaccination programme that abolished smallpox -- an agonising disease that killed hundreds of millions of people -- from the human condition. It was the UN that talked Kennedy and Khrushchev back from the brink when they were poised to incinerate the earth.

The League would not even live up to its limited pro-democracy billing. If you study McCain's foreign policy statements, you find that for him 'democracy' doesn't mean a free and openly elected leader. No: it means a leader who supports US demands.

You can see this if you compare McCain's reactions over the past fortnight to two different separatist movements: in Georgia and Bolivia. When it comes to Georgia, he says it is obscene for South Ossetians to secede from a country they never felt part of, and have never been directly ruled by. He orders the people there to decline the support of the foul Putin regime next door and remain glued to the government of Georgia, against their will, for the sake of keeping the country together. However, when it comes to Bolivia, McCain actively encourages separatism. The Bush administration -- with McCain's support -- has been lavishing cash on the separatists in the gas-rich regions of this South American country in the hope they will declare independence.

Why does McCain think separatism is "evil" in one part of the world, and "necessary" in the other? The answer lies in the ground. In Georgia, the democratic-but-dissident-bashing government lets the US control the oil and gas that pass through the country. In Bolivia, the impeccably democratic government of Evo Morales wants to control it for himself. He is asking US gas companies to pay their fair share, and using the proceeds to lift his own people out of poverty. For that, he is dubbed "authoritarian".

So there's McCain's definition of democracy underpinning the League: if you let us control your resources, you're a democracy. If you try to control your resources yourself, you're a dictatorship. Those of us who believe democracy is the most precious political value of all should be repelled to see it reduced to a propaganda term.

On an increasingly multipolar planet that has begun to disastrously heat up, the need for a shared set of rules we can all push our leaders to obey is greater than ever. But how do we make it work? We need to look beyond the cagey centrism of Obama -- still too determined by America's oil addiction, and the capturing of its politics by big money -- to genuinely radical ideas. Albert Einstein thought the UN General Assembly should be directly elected, and it should in turn appoint the Security Council. This would create an even greater pro-UN momentum all over the world; and its peoples would immediately look to it in any crisis. The vision of a Parliament of Man is obviously distant, but it is a shimmering goal to begin slowly progressing towards. John McCain would slap us back in the opposite direction -- towards a Hobbesian chaos regulated only by raw American power.

To read an archive of Johann Hari's columns for the London Independent, go here.

Comments

[RasAlula]

Its a good piece, but it is wrong in one respect. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of recognizing certain governments as "democratic" based on what access they give us to resources. Its hard to imagine that Barack Obama (or any Democratic President) can , or would want to, change almost a 100 years worth of precedence in American foreign policy. To lay this evil at the hands of the Republicans alone does a disservise to the pursuit of real justice in the world.

[Leofwine]

The UN was created by the US to assist in policing the world. 40% of UN funding comes from just two countries, the US and Japan. The US should get more for its money. Japan, too. With regard to the possiblility of this US "empire" being rebuked for its wickedness by the UN, or the "world community", consider this: The US has military bases in almost 1/4 of the world's 204 nations, and military missions in 120, all BY INVITATION. What kind of "empire" is it that grows by invitation? Only 84 countries are without a US military presence. So much for the "world community".

The anti-Americanism so much on display in this venue is a luxurious passtime for intellectuals who fancy themselves oppressed. Most probably live on the taxpayers' dime. I suspect that anti-Americanism, particularly in Europe, would vanish instantly were Russia to retake Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Sophisticated Europeans think better of us whenever they need young Americans to go and bleed on their behalf.

Is the US an "empire"? If so, it's a new kind. I'm OK with that. Does that "empire" function primarily in the interests of the US? I certainly hope so. Should the US nevertheless assist the UN by intervening in situations (Darfur?) wherein there are no US interests? Yes, but only if the UN Secretary General goes to Washington to grovel before Congress in joint session. Even then I'm not sure US taxpayers would be getting their money's worth.

[RasAlula]

The US did not create the UN. There were many nations involved in the creation of the UN after WWII.

[MThomasNC]

Folks, this is a good analysis piece. But the bigger issue is that conservatives want to destroy all that is liberal democracy. Thomas Frank wrote an interesting piece ' The Plot Against Liberal America" where he lays out their strategy that's been in works since the 1930's. Google this article, it's well worth the read. The conservatives have accomplished a lot of their plans - breaking the unions, deregulations, cutting taxes, privatizing all phases of government and military, roaring government deficits.
One final prize they wanted was privatizing Social Security, but they lost that one. They scared too many voting seniors. So it's no surprise that McCain would have the destruction of United Nations as a mandate. If he gets in WH, at least the dems' controlled congress will keep him in check. If Obama wins, then the UN will be free to do their job.

[KosMax]

If 'Democracy' is used loudly and frequently enough to designate a government that acts in the short term interests of oil corporations and defense contractors, and 'freedom' to refer to the condition of citizens living under such governments, then those will inevitably become the accepted definitions of the words. We'll need to come up with totally new terms for the concepts which we previously referred to as "Democracy" and "Freedom".

For me anyway 'Freedom' used to conjure up a mental image of blue skies and green foliage, maybe a picnic in a nice city park with birds flying about metaphorically and lovers walking hand in hand and kids flying kites and stuff. Now whenever i hear the word this image competes with the feeling of nausea combined with a slight burning sensation in the chest that i get whenever Bush or McCain is on television saying something especially dishonest or hypocritical. After eight years the association of the signifier 'Freedom' with the concept 'Evil Bullshit' is firmly established.

I propose the new words "Arglesponey" and "Neffelsplooge" to designate the concepts formerly known as "democracy" and "freedom" respectively. These words are guarded against future corruption by a protective layer of silliness. Can you imagine McCain standing at a podium calling for the creation of a "League of Arglesponey"? or vowing to spread "arglesponey and neffelsplooge" throughout the world? The words are too silly, it would totally the ruin the militaristic atmosphere thus protecting these precious ideals from sanctimonious posturing suits forever.

[Marlyn]

"McCain does know one thing: he doesn't like the United Nations."

The GOP doesn't like the UN because Republicans are tyrants who are willing to yield power to NO ONE.

And the religious right lunatics believe that the UN is "the beast" mentioned in the Bible in "Revelation", the dream of Saint John. All this goes hand in hand with a belief in prophecy which says (among other things) that Jesus will not come again until the Jews regaining control of their ancient home land.

[RightWingMarine]

Are you saying the Democrats want to give away our national sovereignty? Why should we yield any power over American policy, either foreign or domestic, to anyone? Are other countries going to act in our best interest or their own?

[SurrealPumpkin]

They're going to act in their own interest, which is as it should be.

Where on earth did we come up with this idea that we have any right to mess in other countries for our own convenience?

Do you walk into your neighbor's home and change the decor because you don't approve of the colors?

[Josol]

"Why does McCain think separatism is "evil" in one part of the world, and "necessary" in the other? The answer lies in the ground. In Georgia, the democratic-but-dissident-bashing government lets the US control the oil and gas that pass through the country. In Bolivia, the impeccably democratic government of Evo Morales wants to control it for himself. He is asking US gas companies to pay their fair share, and using the proceeds to lift his own people out of poverty. For that, he is dubbed "authoritarian".

So there's McCain's definition of democracy underpinning the League: if you let us control your resources, you're a democracy. If you try to control your resources yourself, you're a dictatorship. Those of us who believe democracy is the most precious political value of all should be repelled to see it reduced to a propaganda term."

THANK YOU!!!...... WHEN IS THIS GOING TO MAKE MASS MEDIA. I have not seen one mention of oil pipleines on the coverage of the Georgia conflict. The American public is dumb because they are being fed crap all day and night. All the while the moronic talk radio machine continues to do the biding on the part of resource monopolist in the name of "democracy" Its getting sickening.

[Donnat]

If we kill the UN who is going to save us from the continuing creep of American Fascism if McCain (God forbid) is elected?

[UnbiasView]

Link to the UN saving anyone from anything.

[mh01]

What good is the UN anyway? Its a debating club where no-one actually has the will to back up what they say. Its the University of Non-results. Unless you consider corruption a good result.

[ignorantwillyharper]

you say, what good is the UN anyway?
It's good for taking Billions of Dollars of US taxpayers money and never voting with our nation on anything.

[mh01]

Agreed. But University of Non-results fit better with UN than did University of aNti-americanism.

[johnthomascook]

It is sometimes the only way issues can be addressed. The US does not have to go along with the UN at all. It can veto or go its own way. You are worrying about dogma.

[mh01]

Nope, i'm worried about an organization that is overtly anti-american, that purports to be the only global conflict resolution firm, however doesn't have the will to back up its requests or demands, and that is so ridiculously corrupt that its worthless. It can't even accomplish its own humanitarian initiatives, let alone a real fight between nations. Its a joke, League of Nations, the sequel.

That's not dogma, that's reality.

[SurrealPumpkin]

I don't consider corruption good, which is why I want Bush out and I'm not voting for McCain.

[wrathofcon]

Oh God please pull out and put end to that corrupt organization!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U.N. = League of Nations worthless

[UnbiasView]

The UN killed itself by making resolutions and never showing the guts to enforce them.

[CaptainObvious]

Maybe they actually could if they didn't have to constantly watch their back to try and avoid our knife attacks.

McBush should consider naming his new organization the US War of Aggression Approval Council, because that's really what the reich-wing war profiteers are looking for. It would even have a clever-sounding acronym - USWAAC (US-Whack).

[mh01]

captain obvious has obviously gotten the stabbor mixed up with the stabbee.

We carry that organization financially, and, with our allies, are the only members that actually have the will to back up what the global community in the UN wants.....and yet the UN constantly tries to cut off our legs.

Forget about the UN, if McCain can ki-ll it it will be a mercy ki-lling.

[Austintatious]

Those of you who would "kill" the U.N. either fail to see, or choose to ignore, the inherent value of and absolute need for such an organization, however imperfect.

Some of you choose to remain ignorant of the world's condition and the absolute need for a United Nations, simply because you are too lazy to be informed. That would, after all, require you to expend intellectual effort beyond thumbing through the swim suit issue of Sports Illustrated or catching the sports each night on TV. As simplistic as it sounds, your choosing not to fulfill your civic responsibily to be politically informed literally jeopardizes the future of the nation, for it enables despots and demagogues to ascend to power.

The rest of you, by far the most dangerous and despicable, choose not to embrace the idea of a U.N. because it gets in the way of your geopolitical views of the world and America's role in it. It's not that you are lazy - quite the opposite. You expend significant effort to put those despots and demagogues in power, for you prefer a belligerent, imperial America, beholding to no nations, world organizations or principles other than your own - greed and raw power. You world view is sociopathic, by definition.

Bush and McCain don't want a United Nations, international law or, indeed, any law to impede their plans for the country and the world. They, too, are sociopathic.

There has never been a more important election for this country. Think!

[mh01]

Ok, instead of telling people they are lazy and ignorant about the value of the UN, why don't you explain to us why you think its so valuable....please be specific....

And actually, I'm a pretty big fan of NATO....you know, being beholden to our allies, the western, democratic nations that prefer freedom to totalitarianism.

[ofbbg]

NATO was once explained to me by a now Turkish general, who had served on its staff in Belgium, as "No Action Talk Only". Sure, we're beholden to our allies. The question is are they beholden to us? Collectively they're so weak that Russia could overrun them all without breaking a sweat.

[wrathofcon]

If the U.N. is so relevant, than why? Nobody takes them serious. Resolution mean nothing, corruption, Iraqi oil for food.They doing a great job in Africa aren't they? Are they really sending U.N. workers to monitor our elections? Give me a f**king break.
We send billions to this vile anti-American institution....It is quite simple how pathetic the U.N. is.


You right this is very important election, do want to be Americans? or we one step closer to being citizens of the world?

[RightWingMarine]

Why is the US in the UN at all? We spend billions funding their programs some of which are staunchly opposed by Americans, the UN is full of countries that are openly hostile to the US, stuffed with corrupt bureaucrats and it creates the impression that the UN should get to have a say in American policies either foreign or domestic. The UN commits troops around the world to areas the US has no interest in, no responsibilty for and uses our money and/or our military to do it.

The US should pull out of the UN now.

[Evelyn]

"the UN is full of countries that are openly hostile to the US" Well that would be because the *world* is full of countries that are openly hostile to the US. And why is that? Because the US is the world's biggest bully.

[crankiyanki]

You are mixing up the UN (United Nations) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). The UN does not have the power to commit troops anywhere.

[mexicanamerican1948]

You got it right, with the Russian and China security council vetoes, issues like Darfar,etc are never resolved and are a joke. That is why only USA direct action only works.

At times Cuba , China and other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes head the human rights commissions. Maybe they give tips to each how to close more churches and mosques, close more newspapers, and arrest more political prisoners. It has been the club of the selfish left in its latest metamorphosis, but it is all really the same. The knock in the night, a bullet in the neck, church services held underground and the UN delegates with blood on their hand pretend the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship. No it is tyranny. Look at the trolls such as Belarus, China,Russia,Venezuela, Zimbabwe,Sudan, etc.etc No more money!!The UN can move to Belarus or Havana. Good choice, and have them pay their own bills and they can drive 1950 Fords in the worker paradise or Mafioso cars in Belarus provided by Russia. No problema,they can go...

[SurrealPumpkin]

US direct action has worked really well in Iraq.

[lynchie]

Well in fact if you read the article it does not contribute a dime. It is behind by $2.8 billion in payments to the U.N. As far as where the U.N. commits troops just because the U.S. has no corporate interests there doesn't mean we should not stop genocide or abuse of the people living in that country. Yours is the typical right wing response. Unless we can rape and pillage the resources let them die. Your wish may come true in that the rest of the world will turn its back on the U.S. when its economy collapses and as a Third World country we will be looking for aid and help from all those we have scorned and ignored for decades.

[wrathofcon]

Could tell me what were the corporate interest of WWI and WW ll?

I don't believe we will need aid from Honduras any time soon.

[RightWingMarine]

We do have an occasional habit of not paying our dues to the UN but we certainly contribute vast sums of money. From the USUN's own website:.

The President's budget contains a request for the United States to provide a $1.2 billion loan to the United Nations for renovation of its headquarters complex in New York City

The FY2005 request contains nearly $362.2 million to meet the calendar year 2004 United States assessment for the United Nations regular budget, an increase of about $21 million over the current level of $340.8 million approved by Congress for FY2004

US assessed contributions to eleven UN specialized agencies would total about $420 million under the President's budget

In FY2005, United States assessed contributions to United Nations peacekeeping would total $650 million

In addition to its assessed contributions to international organizations, the United States contributes voluntarily to programs that have been created by the UN General Assembly.
For FY2005, the Bush Administration is requesting $120 million for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), similar to levels approved by Congress over the past several years; $90 million for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=328791

Sadly this list goes on and on.

[BADEN]

"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way.

The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.

With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.

Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

-- U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace, quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944

[thecanadian]

Think it is noteworthy to repeat the phrases from above. Fits McCain Bush to a Tee!
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution"
McCain hates it because he can't just go out and Bomb! He is an angry old man who can't get his way. But McCain and Bush just keep on rolling - stirrring up trouble worldwide - sending troops in everywhere they can at great loss of life while they sit back and become billionaires.
how about this. If you see a problem, don't just tear it down, find a way to fix it!

[knowBuddhaU]

WOOHOO! I leapt to my feet when I read that, thanks.

How is it done? By conflating the government and the impostors who hold the insignia of power with the master of the Great Cosmic Machine.

Here's the mythos that' intends the cosmos that grows wee psychos: scare people into imperiled cellves of their own making (cheaper that way), amenable to external manipulation, e.g.,"American," "Georgian," "consumer;" the inmate will actually struggle to remain within.certain of these labels-as-container that I call CELLVES.

It's all about converting the Commons into private property in a context of war between cellf-imprisoned people walled up in gated communities--or open air prisons--within fortified city-states run by latter-day Crusaders who claim monopoly first on true access to their god, then on violence in his name.

Look at what we've done in Israel. Look at Bush's Democratic Iraq, at New Orleans., the inner cities, inside your cellf.

[[[Absolute supremacy / The Commons ///[[[{{{Absolute subjugation}}}]]]]]]

These are the walls of which Obama spoke so eloquently in Berlin. Mistaking our other half for an enemy generates existential fear that is then exploited mechanically, to herd us into things like cellves and groups and nations and leagues of nations.

War is the metaphor for everything we do, because we conceive of life itself as a perpetual holy war. Even within the religions of this mythos, there is another Way.

beloved/UNION/Beloved

[Whinger]

I'm no supporter of John McCain, but killing the UN would considered a mercy killing!

In the company of Nato it is a total waste of public resources!

[DrScientist]

That's a great idea; the UN is, and has been, a joke. Heck yes, let's give banana republics a voice at the big table; they're managing their affairs so swimmingly that we should listen to them, give them a stake.
Great idea; throwing billions upon billions (guess where most of those billions come from) at countries with tin-horn dictators or tin-horn puppets so the ruling families, et al remain stinking rich off of the money of the American tax payer while their countrymen rot.

[BARRISTER]

Dr.Scientist:

The US IS the "joke".

[Puzzles]

Wow! Remember the old adage of pointing the finger. Your arrogant ignorance is overwhelming. "tin-horn dictators or tin-horn puppets so the ruling families, et al remain stinking rich off of the money of the American tax payer" Ha ha, what a great description of the current administration.

Don't you realize, The US has become the largest third world nation. Admittedly, the US populace has MORE of the crappy plastic Chinese made garbage than many other nations. However, the acquisition of the Wal-mart products is inversely proportional to the education being acquired. Not so in the countries you belittle as "banana republics." We've been yelling "we're #1" for so long, that not only have we pissed off the world, we've forgotten how to count beyond past 2.