Conghaileach
14th September 2002, 16:33
The United Nations of America
John O'Farrell
Saturday September 14, 2002
The Guardian
American officials are currently lobbying hard at the UN. It's the name they don't like: "United Nations" - there's something not quite right about it.
"We're prepared to compromise..." they say. "You can keep the first word."
"United?"
"Yeah, but that second bit sounds wrong - what other words are there?"
"United Countries?"
"No..."
"United Places?
"No, no, there must be another word for nation or country..."
"State?"
"Hmmm... United States, yes that has a ring to it. So we'll call it the 'United States' with its HQ in the United States... Now this UN flag; we're prepared to compromise - you can keep some of the blue, but it needs a bit of red and white in there as well."
George Bush is trying to hijack the UN. Delegates thought it was just a routine peacetime trip. They were settling back in their seats for a snooze when suddenly a scary-looking American president broke through the flimsy doors into the UN's cockpit, grabbed the controls and tried to steer it into a catastrophe. Will anyone have the courage to overpower him or will they nervously sit it out, hoping that they might somehow survive?
Of course he tried to appear conciliatory and courteous. But Bush's speech to the UN this week was like a headteacher pretending to respect the newly formed school council. It's not that he was patronising to the UN, but at one point he stopped his monologue and shouted: "Canada! Are you chewing? Get up here and spit it out!"
His message was that the only way to ensure UN policy was implemented was to change it to American policy. Some of the more subversive translators were having great fun. Bush said: "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?" And into the headphones of one European minister came the translation: "Listen, suckers, I'm going to bomb who the bloody hell I like, so sod the lot of you!"
"The world now faces a test and the UN a defining moment..." continued Dubya as African leaders heard him apparently saying, "I've never heard of half your countries! Why are you wearing those funny costumes? I might bomb you next! I've got B52s and sidewinders and everything. Neeeeeoooow, boom! Bang! Ker-pow!"
Despite his efforts, Bush does not have the backing of the international community and so makes the most of his support from the British foreign secretary. Diplomatically he is a drowning man clutching at Jack Straws.
The UN, admittedly, is not the speediest means of deciding policy. At the beginning of the Afghan conflict a UN committee sat down to hammer out a resolution and this week they nearly agreed on whether it was "Taliban" with an "i" or "Taleban" with an "e". But changing the world takes time. It is a laborious and painstaking process.
In north London an extended campaign by local residents recently managed to prevent a branch of Starbucks opening in their area. In my road another Starbucks has just opened and someone keeps smashing the windows. (It's amazing what you can get the cubs to do in Bob-A-Job week.) Bombing Baghdad is the diplomatic equivalent of protesters who smash windows. It makes them feel tough and hard; it's quick and easy but it doesn't actually make anything better for the people who really need help. It's instant espresso politics to go.
Meaningful change is brought about by long-term strategies, patience, painstaking persuasion and taking people with you. In this crisis we have to ensure that the UN is the ultimate authority; it has to agree a meaningful line and then eventually we might find a way to rid the world of the new Starbucks in my road.
Saddam might seem a little harder to shift, but quick wars don't bring long-term peace. American foreign policy is like their television. It has to keep jumping from one thing to another because the president has the remote control in his hand and his attention span is very limited. That thrilling adventure Take Out the Taliban! held his interest for a short while, but now the explosive open ing action sequence is over and it's got bogged down in the complex story of rebuilding a war-torn country. Bush's finger is hovering over that button itching to see if there's any more exciting stuff somewhere else.
"Don't you want to stick with this and see how Afghanistan turns out?" asks Colin Powell.
"Nah, it's got boring now."
"But we don't even know if they catch Bin Laden..."
"Ooh wow, look what's on CNN! 'Bombers Over Baghdad!' Let's see if this baddie Saddam gets it instead..."
A war on Iraq will not make the world a safer place. Perhaps the only way to make US policy successful is radically to change the aims. Then as the troops are brought home and the flags are waved the White House could declare that it had definitely achieved all the objectives in Operation Kill All the Wrong People and Make the Problem Much Worse.
John O'Farrell
Saturday September 14, 2002
The Guardian
American officials are currently lobbying hard at the UN. It's the name they don't like: "United Nations" - there's something not quite right about it.
"We're prepared to compromise..." they say. "You can keep the first word."
"United?"
"Yeah, but that second bit sounds wrong - what other words are there?"
"United Countries?"
"No..."
"United Places?
"No, no, there must be another word for nation or country..."
"State?"
"Hmmm... United States, yes that has a ring to it. So we'll call it the 'United States' with its HQ in the United States... Now this UN flag; we're prepared to compromise - you can keep some of the blue, but it needs a bit of red and white in there as well."
George Bush is trying to hijack the UN. Delegates thought it was just a routine peacetime trip. They were settling back in their seats for a snooze when suddenly a scary-looking American president broke through the flimsy doors into the UN's cockpit, grabbed the controls and tried to steer it into a catastrophe. Will anyone have the courage to overpower him or will they nervously sit it out, hoping that they might somehow survive?
Of course he tried to appear conciliatory and courteous. But Bush's speech to the UN this week was like a headteacher pretending to respect the newly formed school council. It's not that he was patronising to the UN, but at one point he stopped his monologue and shouted: "Canada! Are you chewing? Get up here and spit it out!"
His message was that the only way to ensure UN policy was implemented was to change it to American policy. Some of the more subversive translators were having great fun. Bush said: "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?" And into the headphones of one European minister came the translation: "Listen, suckers, I'm going to bomb who the bloody hell I like, so sod the lot of you!"
"The world now faces a test and the UN a defining moment..." continued Dubya as African leaders heard him apparently saying, "I've never heard of half your countries! Why are you wearing those funny costumes? I might bomb you next! I've got B52s and sidewinders and everything. Neeeeeoooow, boom! Bang! Ker-pow!"
Despite his efforts, Bush does not have the backing of the international community and so makes the most of his support from the British foreign secretary. Diplomatically he is a drowning man clutching at Jack Straws.
The UN, admittedly, is not the speediest means of deciding policy. At the beginning of the Afghan conflict a UN committee sat down to hammer out a resolution and this week they nearly agreed on whether it was "Taliban" with an "i" or "Taleban" with an "e". But changing the world takes time. It is a laborious and painstaking process.
In north London an extended campaign by local residents recently managed to prevent a branch of Starbucks opening in their area. In my road another Starbucks has just opened and someone keeps smashing the windows. (It's amazing what you can get the cubs to do in Bob-A-Job week.) Bombing Baghdad is the diplomatic equivalent of protesters who smash windows. It makes them feel tough and hard; it's quick and easy but it doesn't actually make anything better for the people who really need help. It's instant espresso politics to go.
Meaningful change is brought about by long-term strategies, patience, painstaking persuasion and taking people with you. In this crisis we have to ensure that the UN is the ultimate authority; it has to agree a meaningful line and then eventually we might find a way to rid the world of the new Starbucks in my road.
Saddam might seem a little harder to shift, but quick wars don't bring long-term peace. American foreign policy is like their television. It has to keep jumping from one thing to another because the president has the remote control in his hand and his attention span is very limited. That thrilling adventure Take Out the Taliban! held his interest for a short while, but now the explosive open ing action sequence is over and it's got bogged down in the complex story of rebuilding a war-torn country. Bush's finger is hovering over that button itching to see if there's any more exciting stuff somewhere else.
"Don't you want to stick with this and see how Afghanistan turns out?" asks Colin Powell.
"Nah, it's got boring now."
"But we don't even know if they catch Bin Laden..."
"Ooh wow, look what's on CNN! 'Bombers Over Baghdad!' Let's see if this baddie Saddam gets it instead..."
A war on Iraq will not make the world a safer place. Perhaps the only way to make US policy successful is radically to change the aims. Then as the troops are brought home and the flags are waved the White House could declare that it had definitely achieved all the objectives in Operation Kill All the Wrong People and Make the Problem Much Worse.