R2P Or Not R2P

At one time the United Nations had a simple, straightforward major mission. Protect the international peace. That was the one issue focused upon by the architects of the UN during the bloody years of World War II as it had been on the part of Woodrow Wilson and other visionaries during an earlier hectatomb.

The prevention or, at worst, the punishment of aggressive war waged in the face of international disapproval was the centerpiece at the launching of the UN in San Francisco more than a half century ago. While there were other items on the UN's plate--including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--these were seen as clearly secondary. They were conceived of as means of limiting the excuses used by nations to go to war.

That simple, unitary focus became increasingly fuzzy in the waning days of the Cold War particularly after President Jimmy Carter elevated the concept of "human rights" to the top priority of American foreign policy. While there is no doubt that President Carter was both sincere and somewhat pragmatically minded in his dedication to human rights, the Law of Unintended Consequences stood by ready to invoke itself.

The UN pushed its camel's nose into an entirely new area a few years ago when the congeries of diplomats meeting on the banks of the Hudson determined that a potential threat to international peace and stability was posed automatically when a government's policies or weakness resulted in refugee streams crossing international borders. The existence of a flow of refugees became de facto proof that some sort of international intervention was required not only to meet "humanitarian" needs but also to stave off any potential breach of the international peace.

This diplomatic artifice constructed a very steep slope paved with glare ice. It allowed, no, encouraged, the Security Council to determine when and if an internal matter had reached such a pitch of refugee generation (and high visibility flowing of blood and gore) that international intervention was required. If the five Permanent Members could agree on the necessity or desirability of invoking the presumed UN mandate to protect the citizens of the target county, the Boys in Blue Helmets could be deployed.

If and when (as was far from atypical) the Security Council could not agree on intervention, the fall back position was the invocation of a similar "responsibility to protect" (called in diplomatic and journalistic shorthand, "R2P") on the part of the UN or regional organisations. The European Union, the Organisation of American States, the African Union, even NATO, could determine that they had a "responsibility to protect" within their geographic bailiwicks.

Stripped to its essentials the "responsibility to protect" means that some external entity, a state, a regional organisation, the UN, determines on some basis or another that a country has reached such a sorry state of internal depravity and wretchedness that intervention is the necessary course of action. Since the intervention is not sought nor welcomed by the target country or its government, this means the incoming forces are armed and ready to use force to impose their will on the target.

In short, the "responsibility to protect" means making war.

Ironically, the UN, an entity created to keep the international peace, can invoke the "responsibility to protect" in order to wage war. Normally the use of the "R2P" is either by or at the behest of a Great Power against some country which is not a client of another Great Power.

Back in 2005 the "international community" visited the subject of "R2P" at some length. At the end of the visit some 150 world leaders endorsed the concept. Now, four years later, the UN General Assembly is back in the trenches of "R2P."

The NYT suggests that getting the member nations to agree on how and when to intervene so as to stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing should not "be much of a stretch." The mere fact that the weight of historical experience underscores the difficulty with agreeing on anything beyond muttering platitudes, the gaining of widespread agreement on the necessity of invading a country due to its internal difficulties is nearly impossible.

Not surprisingly the panjandrums of the UN bureaucracy are overwhelmingly in favor of an "R2P" protocol with real bite. The High Commissioner For Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has called for a "credible capacity for rapid responses." Madam Pillay, like UN SecGen Ban Ki-moon, referenced the massacres in Rwanda during which the world stood by and watched horrified as at least 800,000 were slaughtered.

There is an old cliche in jurisprudence, "Hard cases make bad law." In international politics there is (or should be) a similar saying, "Extreme examples make bad precedent."

To put it simply, there is no firebreak in mere numbers. Nor is there a bright and shining line contained in the swiftness of the slaughter. Once the precedent is enshrined there can be no meaningful distinctions between the fast mass murder of a Rwanda and the slow killing fields of a Zimbabwe or a Somalia. There can be no proper, policy related distinctions drawn between massive and bloody efforts at ethnic cleansing as in former Yugoslavia and the slow-motion ejection of Christians from Iraq.

Regardless of speed, efficiency, or numbers each is an example of abuse of human rights on a large scale. Each occurred because of either government action or government inaction. Each generated refugees. Each outraged (or should have) global sensibilities. Each was (or is) a candidate for "R2P."

The same may be said (and has been) regarding Chinese actions in Tibet or, more recently, in Xianjiang. The same may be said (and has been) regarding Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

The same was said in (partial) justification of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein's regime did engage in internal actions which resulted in massive death, dislocation, and refugee generation. Silent at the time Saddam's men used toxic gas against civilian Kurds, the US waved the bloody shirt of human rights violations nearly two decades later. ("Well," the administration might have said, "better late than never.")

The question of when--if ever--external actors have a "right" or a "responsibility" to intervene at bayonet point to "protect" civilian populations from harm at the hands of their own government or from non-governmental bodies not inhibited by the government is neither easy to parse nor simple to judge. This is the point behind the recent objections to "R2P" raised by General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto and others including the renowned left-leaning American linguistic and general purpose critic, Noam Chomsky.

D'Escoto circulated a "Concept Note" in which he characterised the "R2P" idea as just one more form of neocolonialism. He has been joined in this position by Dr Chomsky who (correctly) pointed out that "R2P" has been used by Western advanced nations to impose their vision on countries in the non-Western world.

There is an uncomfortable degree of truth in these arguments, much as the Geek personally dislikes finding himself in agreement with d'Escoto, let alone Chomsky. The Great Powers have the influence, resources, and agendas necessary to support interventions under an appropriate color. The most appropriate cover in today's Era of Sensitivity is the protection of one or another of the numerous "lesser breeds without the law" (in Kipling's phrase.) "R2P" is in keeping with a long standing American tradition of couching armed interventions in lofty, humanitarian terms such as Wilson's famed idea of "teaching Mexicans to elect good men."

Another, less publicised danger of using "R2P" as a justification for military operations is the potential for frankly cynical abuse. Russia draped "R2P" over its tanks and jets during the incursion and occupation of disputed territory then under Georgian sovereignty. The Kremlin claimed with a straight face and in the most solemn terms that their army was simply protecting the human rights of the locals faced with genocide at the hands of the aggressive Georgian government.

The Chinese have made similar statements regarding their suppression of demonstrations in Tibet and Xianjiang. The army and police were simply protecting the human rights of the Han Chinese from abuse at the hands of ethnic minorities.

And, so it has gone. As it will continue to go. "Human rights" and the closely linked "R2P" will be exploited by governments to cover naked land grabs and regime maintenance actions.

At the same time governments will continue to be very, very cautious, reluctant really, to involve their forces in the vast majority of situations which might fall legitimately under the rubric, "R2P." That overarching reality is in high evidence today.

Somalia is and has been for years the very definition of human depravity and consequent misery. Ban Ki-moon has once more called upon the "international community" for "armed support" for the tottering artifact created by the same international community, the Transitional Federal Government. The African Union peace keeping force is so undermanned, so poorly equipped, and so lacking in motivation that its troops can barely protect their own base, let alone the TFG.

The members of the African Union show little stomach for further involvement in the Somali cesspit. There are very real reasons given for this. Lack of money. Deficient logistics. No transport. There are also other, equally valid and more compelling unstated reasons.

Chief among these silent justifications is this: What is in it for us? What national interest is served by seeing our troops killed in Somalia?

Abstracts are very poor reasons for getting killed. And, let's be honest about it. Human rights is an abstract. Each and every point referenced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is itself an abstract. They are the creations of a particular historical and philosophical tradition--Western Christianity and its precursors in Greece and Ancient Israel.

They are not real, organic, and emotive concepts in other traditions. They are not good reasons for a government, particularly one faced by its own problems at home to send off men to kill and die. Not even when the blood filled cesspit is right next door and the refugees are flooding your country.

Kenya is a major non-participant in Somalia. Similarly South Africa set back and watched Mugabe's thugs create a swamp of violence, death, poverty, and disease in Zimbabwe. The governments of these nations were not blind to what was happening. Nor were they morally indifferent.

There was simply no compelling national interest at stake. Lacking that, there was no justification for bearing the expenses in lives, treasure, and potential internal complications exercising some sort of abstract "R2P."

The weight of both history and practical realities is against "R2P." This may bother the high minded such as our UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, and the assorted capos of the UN. It may bother the editors of the NYT as the tone of their coverage makes clear.

But, it is a fact. A brute ground truth.

We the People may like to forget or overlook this truth. Just as we like to overlook the reality that when faced by a man with a gun we, each and every one of us, has the "human right" of life only if we can shoot faster and straighter than the other guy.

Obama's Dreamy Drift In Democratic Fantasyland

In keeping with his evident belief in a post-modern view of history (see the Cairo Address as one example) which holds that every person's "narrative" is equally valid, President Obama and, thus, his foreign policy crew hold that the disposed leftist and wannabe strongman of Honduras, Manuel Zeylaya, is "the only constitutional president" of the country. Only one small detail eludes the US president and one time professor of constitutional law.

(The beauty of the post-modern world view is that a person may pick the "narrative" he feels most emotionally in tune with regardless of objective truth. For, you see, post-modernism does not admit of any objective truth.)

The removal of Zelaya was undertaken by the Honduran military pursuant to constitutionally mandated processes. The action was taken in compliance with a Supreme Court order. It was also validated by the Honduran Congress. While the defenestration of Zelaya might have been a bit unseemly in its execution, it did not contravene the country's constitution.

The mixers and troublemakers in the current contretemps were Zelaya's fellow leftists, Hugo Chavez and Miguel d'Escoto. Without the blatant, full-throated support of these two champions of the vox populi, Zelaya would have faded into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

Hugo has made the facilities of his increasingly autocratic regime available to Zelaya. The highly visible attempted return to Honduras by the ousted pretender to "president-for-life" status and thus the demonstrations and (single) death were made possible by Hugo having loaned an aircraft to Manuel. Over the weekend the former Honduran president took to the Venezuelan airwaves on a Hugo controlled TV station to rant against the "ogres" who ousted him.

Unlike his sponsors Chavez and d'Escoto, the once and perhaps future strongman of Honduras refrained from attacking the US for its alleged role in the removal process. This silence was strictly tactical.

Zelaya wants more US support. He doesn't deserve the support he has received so far, but no matter, he wants more. President Obama and SecState Clinton have ignored the realities of the internal politics of Honduras. They have overlooked the nearly monolithic opposition to Zelaya within the Honduran upper and middle classes, the Catholic Church, the press, and the institutions of state.

They have even managed not to read the opinion poll conducted recently by a Mexican polling outfit which saw Zelaya at the bottom of the "trusted leader" list. They have even managed to turn a Nelsonian eye to the reality that corruption, drug driven violence, and crime generally have been on the severe uptick during Zelaya's term in office.

The Honduran people made a mistake when they elected Zelaya. They came to recognise and repent of the mistake. Most were willing to hunker down and let the inefficient, ineffective, and loud mouthed man finish his term while hoping that not much more damage would accrue. But, Zelaya's blatant attempt to subvert the intention of the constitution by seeking a referendum which would allow him to emulate his master, Hugo Chavez, by becoming de facto president for all eternity, was one insult too many.

True, the referendum might have gone against Zelaya but why take chances given the record of electoral corruption throughout the region--including the fun, games, tricks, and general zaniness engaged in by Chavez in what passes for presidential elections on the shores of Lake Maracaibo.

Or, that was the way the Supreme Court saw the matter. The court ruled against holding the referendum. Zelaya tried to overrule the court. He failed. And, the soldiers came at dawn.

Except for those Hondurans at the bottom of the economic heap who fell for the standard issue pap of pie-in-the-sky socialist oratory pouring forth from Zelaya's copious oral cavity, the people of the much beset country breathed a sigh of relief as the tail light of Zelaya's flight disappeared over the horizon. Oscar Arias, who is a man of undoubted integrety and probity as well as political and diplomatic skill, failed to bring a compromise between Zelaya (who didn't even deign to show up) and the current government of Honduras.

The interim president of Honduras (named by the congress not the generals) Roberto Micheletti has offered amnesty to Sr Zelaya should he return to face Honduran justice. This is a lot better offer than the customary one in past military coups--a firing squad. More, Micheletti has made encouraging noises about holding elections before the currently scheduled date in November. Again, this is not the customary practice in "military coups."

If Mr Obama were not so lost in the haze of some fantasyland understanding of democracy, he would be standing beside the new Honduran government. He would be welcoming both the amnesty offer and the re-scheduling of elections. He would acknowledge that while the military's removal of Zelaya lacked a touch of class, it was done according to the rules. Honduran rules.

If Mr Obama were not so much a prisoner of the post-modern, he would at the very least both understand and publicly state that democracy was in a heck of a lot better shape in Honduras than it was in Venezuela (and other states bitten by the "Bolivarian" bug.)

Ah, but reality has never been a favorite of the Nice Young Man From Chicago.

Getting Back To Business--Central America

It is time for the Obama administration to get a grip on the realities in Central and South America. Instead of wasting time, energy, political capital, and prestige on the attempt to resurrect a man, Manuel Zelaya, it should be using its efforts to seek stability in countries now being wracked with the effects of drug traffic driven crime, corruption, and violence.

The reality is simple. Sr Zelaya is shown by a recent Mexican poll to be the most disliked, distrusted, and discredited politician in Central America. Both of Honduras' major parties--including Zelaya's own--as well as the Catholic Church, the Congress, all the major media outlets and over two-thirds of the people want Zelaya out of office. Sure, this impressive majority was willing to see Zelaya finish his term in office and leave next January, but, when he seemed to be lusting after some sort of legitimate way to become Strongman For Life, both the country's Congress and Supreme Court said, "You have been here too long, get thee hence."

The Army carried out the direction of the Supreme Court and removed Zelaya. While there have been a few quite minor protests against this action, the real opposition resides external to Honduras.

Sr Zelaya has his supporters. They are headed by Hugo Chavez, a man whose love of democracy is questionable but whose distaste for the United States is monumental. Other supporters include Daniel Ortega, who once upon a time headed a group which shot its way into power but was finally forced to back down, regroup, and ultimately seek office via election. Ortega's one time companion in revolutionary arms, Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, who abandoned the priesthood to become Nicaragua's foreign minister and current president of the UN General Assembly, has served as chief cheerleader for the ousted fellow leftist from Honduras.

The lesser cheerleaders--all of whom are on the far left shores of politics and most of whom seek to emulate Hugo Chavez by gaining constitutional changes which will allow presidencies-for-life include Ewo Morales and Rafael Correa. Neither of these have shown any reluctance in supporting Sr Zelaya irrespective of his genuine popularity among the homeboys of Honduras.

Zelaya has made a close and attentive study of the ways in which the staunch upholders of Left Socialism under its new name, "Bolivarianism," sought and retained power by exploiting not only the legitimate hostility engendered among the lower orders by the exploitative actions of a distant, haughty elite but also by manufacturing fear and loathing of the United States. Doing the latter requires no great effort considering the alternating fits of total indifference and daring interventionism of varying sorts which typify whatever passes for US policy toward Central and South America.

In recent days both Chavez and Ortega have threatened military intervention on behalf of Sr Zeylaya. The deposed wannabe dictator has vowed to return to his country in triumph. In a response which is not surprising, the military and acting president of Honduras, Roberto Michelletti, have pronounced the republic to be in peril and have summoned the reserves back to the colors.

In large measure due to the urgings of Miguel d'Escoto and the out-to-lunch approach of the Obama administration, the UN has inserted itself in the dispute. The decisions of the congress and supreme court of Honduras as carried out by the military are strictly an internal affair of Honduras. There is absolutely no justification under the UN Charter for that entity to involve itself in the matter.

Admittedly the UN has consistently expanded its view of its own importance and scope of its missions far beyond those seen by the drafters of the UN Charter over sixty years ago. Some of the "mission creep" seen by the UN in recent years can be marginally justified by asserting that internal disorder resulting in refugee generation at a level which threatens the stability of neighboring countries constitutes an actual or potential "breach of the peace."

By that interpretation the UN General Assembly and Security Council have the precedent on their side should they be so bold (or ill-advised) as to further involve the organisation in the ongoing affrays in Somalia or Sudan. But, even this broad understanding of UN Charter derived authority cannot be used to excuse any meddling in the current situation in Honduras. Other than the normal "migrant" population drifting north, there are no "refugee" hordes streaming across international borders.

The Organisation of American States (OAS) has some fig leaf of respectability in its efforts to defuse any crisis which may now attend the accomplished feat of Zelaya's removal. In any such efforts the OAS would only undercut any legitimacy it may possess should it either heed or give a platform for voices such as those of the Ortega regime or that of Hugo Chavez, which have a, shall we say, badly checkered past in the transparent practice of pluralistic democracy department.

The Obama administration would be wise if it were to quit hyperventilating over the removal of Zelaya and accommodate the new reality in Honduras. We do nothing constructive by damning the new government, halting our normal course of business with the regime and its military. All we do is surrender the field to the biggest mouths of the region. That is not in our interests. Nor is it in the interests of the people, stability, and future of Honduras.

Instead the Obama administration had best focus on the proliferation of destabilizing violence related to drug trafficking which is scourging not only Mexico but other countries in Central America. The Mexican situation has deteriorated from last year as the body count shows. This has occurred in spite of the strong effort to counter the violence made by the Calderon administration;

Crime--including kidnappings, murders and lesser forms of assault--dominate the upcoming election. The Green Party has even taken the quite unthinkable step of calling for the reimposition of the death penalty for kidnapping and murder. That in and of itself demonstrates the effect the narcotrafficking based crime tidal wave has had on the Mexican population.

Mexico is not alone. The press of Guatemala is filled with reports detailing assassinations, kidnappings, run-of-the-mill robberies which sound as if they should be datelined "Juarez" or perhaps "Chicago--1930." By some accounts the body count per day runs ahead of that seen in Mexico. Overall, a person is safer in Iraq or even Afghanistan than he is in Guatemala or portions of Mexico.

The pattern is repeating itself in Costa Rica and--during Zeylaya's watch--Honduras. As has been seen over the past two decades and more, the cycle of drug trafficking, violence, and political corruption by the those involved in these criminal activities can threaten the stability of a state. Just review the history of Columbia.

If outsiders seek to exploit to their political advantage the rents in the social and political fabric made by the violence and money of drug trafficking, the resultant instability can be far more difficult, perhaps impossible, to combat. For this reason alone the Obama administration should deal with reality as it is in Honduras--and elsewhere--not play meaningless and potentially counterproductive rhetorical games over the need for democracy to be observed regardless of the outcome.

Climb down from progressive fantasyland, Mr President, your country and the region to our south needs realism. Get a grip on it.

Shut Up! Some Things Can't Be Talked About

There are some subjects which are thought to be off-limits for discussion. Topics about which some person or group somewhere on the planet is sensitive. Areas of discourse which might somehow offend deep seated sensibilities.

High, perhaps highest on the list, at least according to the Society Obsessively Protecting the Sensitive (SOPS) with headquarters at the United Nations, is religion.

It appears that people afflicted with a deep and abiding religious faith are so insecure in the value of that faith and its penumbra of beliefs and practices that the slightest hint of any questioning or criticism on the part of those who are not members of the individual's community of faith leads inexorably and inevitably to a crushing sense of despair and depression which can only be relieved by shouts of "Death to..." and threats or acts of violence directed against those who have uttered the questions, criticisms or denunciations. What a quaint and curious notion.

Actually this strange view surpasses the quaint and curious to enter the world of the bizarre. Considering that a deeply held faith is commonly supposed to strengthen the believer against the comments of those who do not share the belief, the movement to limit freedom of speech is identical to the excuse for failure so often advanced by those who seek to communicate with the dead in a seance--"There's an unbeliever here. The spirits won't talk with a skeptic present."

Originating with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the movement to limit free expression on matters of religion has spread to the United Nations. After having gained the full support of the UN Human Rights Commission (to the extent that Sharia cannot be mentioned at their meetings) the gag-the-unbelievers contagion was caught this past week by the General Assembly.

It is easy to understand why the OIC and its member states are grotesquely perturbed by the idea of criticism or skepticism directed at the One Pure Faith. Islam, to an extent surpassing even that of the other monotheistic religions, is predicated upon fear. Fear and its partner in debilitation, personal insecurity.

Islam per se is based on fear. The fear of hell. Its statements of creed linger with pornographic detail upon the punishments which await the unbeliever and the apostate or the Muslim who breaks the laws of the lord when they die. The perils and torments of the pit are put forth with a degree of B movie detail which are scary in the extreme. From infancy on the individual in a Muslim society is raised on a diet of unremitting fear.

That Muslims, particularly Muslim men, are insecure in painfully obvious. The only rational explanation for the constant emphasis in both word and deed upon the subjugation of women is that men are afflicted with near terminal insecurity regarding their male nature and character. The same may be seen in the pathetic emphasis placed upon male secondary sex characteristics such as never shaving and on the presumed male propensity for violence.

Fear and insecurity alike are seen in the constant refrain about the "Muslim community" and the threat posed to that community by any slight odor of divisiveness, of fitna. Humans are a herd animal to be sure and many, even most, religions have sought to capitalise on that fact. At one time or another, for greater or lesser periods of time, each of the monotheistic faiths has sought to maintain its internal coherence by definitions based on exclusion.

But, only Islam has placed the definition of community so firmly on the rock of exclusion. Only Islam has made a article of faith and community membership out of the specious notion that the human race is divided into two camps: The House of Islam and The House of War.

And, in recent decades at least, Islam has stood alone in affirming that it can be and is victimised, threatened and persecuted by open inquiry and free expression. Islam, or at least many Muslims occupying leadership positions in Muslim societies, are more fearful of words and cartoons than they are of bombs and bullets.

Not only is Islam founded on fear, many Muslim majority societies are inherently authoritarian in nature. This is expectable. All too often throughout the sweep of human history people have shown themselves ready, even eager to adopt authoritarian rule in order to lower fear and reduce the insecurity which is a natural part of life.

Authoritarianism is the critical link between the OIC backed move for an international convention preventing "defamation" of religion and its acceptance in an ever-widening international arena. Consider the statement attributed to General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann last week.

D'Escoto said, “Yes, I believe that defamation of religion should be banned." He added, 'No one should try to defame Islam or any other religion. We should respect all religions.”

Miguel d'Escoto Brockman started life as a Roman Catholic priest. Catholicism is a hierarchical and authoritarian creed. It is also a religion that has been noted over the past couple thousand years for having made numerous attempts to prohibit free inquiry and expression. Even today it would be difficult, not to say impossible, to describe the Church accurately as espousing open inquiry, open expression and dissent over matters of faith and doctrine.

Sr d'Escoto joined the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas, as was typical for all Marxist-Leninist parties throughout the world, was rigidly hierarchical and authoritarian. Considering that d'Escoto became the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister during the years of Sandinista government, he must be quite comfortable with limitations on speech and inquiry. He probably even became poopy when the US government made remarks about his government which might be interpreted as icky-poo, as less than flatly adulatory.

Non-Communist, non-Muslim authoritarian regimes, particularly in the Third World, have been plumping for years at the UN and other venues to impose restrictions upon free speech and open debate. Slipping in a major limitation under the guise of protecting religious sensibilities from the potential of something called "defamation" must be a very attractive option for these less-than-high-minded rulers.

Of course Sr d'Escoto denied that preventing "defamation," a term which is impossible to rigorously and objectively define given that its nature depends upon subjective perceptions, would limit free speech. This same outrageous assertion has been and will be made ad nauseum by the OIC and assorted Islamic governments such as those in Pakistan and Iran. While there may be intellectually flaccid members of the Western European and American elites--all card carrying adherents of the Society of the Perpetually Indignant and Concerned, all up-to-the-minute with what is sensitive and politically correct--who accept this contention, it is bankrupt on its face.

Limiting inquiry, expression and debate (including mockery and satire) on a subject which is central to the human condition not only limits speech, it limits our very capacity to be human, to use that most exceptional of human organs--our brains. To declare, as the OIC and GA president d'Escoto want to, that religion is off-limits is to strike at the very heart of political free speech.

With respect to Islam, religion is politics. Given the current state of play in international politics, to deny expression--even expression subjectively felt to be "defamatory," is to surrender the ideological battlefield.

No amount of misplaced sympathy for those whose fears lead to a sense of having been insulted by word (or cartoon) can be allowed to interfere with a dynamic in the world which every day increasingly resembles a "clash of civilizations." No amount of mis-guided political correctness or ill-informed regard for the sensibilities of Islamic populations can be permitted to cause the US or the West to forfeit the contest with the witches' brew of Islamists, born-again Communists, and authoritarian governments which threaten both our lives and our liberties today.

Fantasyland By The Hudson Gets More Fantastic

Once upon a time Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann was a Roman Catholic priest. He was smitten by a very seductive idea--liberation theology. So, the priest became a Left Socialist. Well, actually he became a Castro-leaning Communist. Fr (perhaps Sr would be more appropriate) Brockmann joined the Sandinistas of Nicaragua.

Along with the Ortega brothers Sr Brockmann was a noted adversary of the US during the years of the Reagan presidency. From the perspective of Washington the priest turned Sandinista was a bete noir of the darkest sort. We wanted him dead.

The Reagan Administration did not get its wish. Sr Brockman survived the years of the Contras. He weathered the period of political isolation which followed the end of the nasty little Contra War and the election of an anti-Sandinista government

Proving once again that the Lord works in mysterious ways, the Sandinistas came to power finally in an election that met the usual criteria of seeming to be open, fair and free. Sr Brockmann became Foreign Minister. As such he pursued policies which were not closely aligned with those of the US.

Be that as it may, US administrations had changed. The Soviet Union was of interest only to historians. Communism (and history, but not historians for which the Geek is thankful) was declared dead by American academics and others of the chattering class. Sr Brockmann was neither hated nor desired dead by the denizens living inside the Beltway. Even the neocons had bigger fish to catch and fry in the Mideast.

Now the whims and winds of democratic process have made Sr Brockmann the new President of the UN General Assembly. The priest turned Foreign Minister offered his maiden speech the other day. He proved two things.

You can take the man out of the cassock, but you can't remove the priestly from the man.

Communism may be officially dead, but lambasting capitalist Western pigs (and Israel) is alive, well and a crowd pleaser. Lest you think the Geek gets it wrong, the transcript is available at the UN site. (http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/statements/160908opening63.shtml)

Sr Brockmann makes his sentiments clear and unmistakable. Compared to the new GA President, Senator Obama frankly hates the poor and wretched of the earth.

I am aware of the great expectations which the vast majority of the dispossessed inhabitants of our threatened planet have placed in the United Nations to bring them peace, security and to defend their right to life and to full development. We must not fail them. It was most of all for the dispossessed of the world that I took up the challenge of presiding over this sixty-third session of the General Assembly. It is to them — to all our sisters and brothers on this Earth — that I dedicate my presidency. We must unite our efforts, with all the seriousness that the task requires, to meet their expectations. I trust that I can count on all of you to give me your most generous cooperation. On behalf of Nicaragua and the entire Latin American and Caribbean region, my extended homeland, I thank you for your confidence.

When you hear words like this the time has come to hang on to your wallet--with both hands.

When Fr/Sr Brockmann gets on a roll he rolls ever faster. Here is one specific case. Food.

At the root of the problem of world hunger is the unequal distribution of purchasing power within and between countries. Rather than concentrate on increasing food production as the single solution, the central focus of our efforts should be on the reduction of the inequalities in our world’s food production system.

Apparently Brockmann has a an old-school Marxist conspiracy theory view of global economics or at least the farming part of it.

Not convinced that the new GA president mouths the same slogans of long dead Kremlin Commissars? Try this. Brockmann's view of two critical internatinal institutions.

Both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are basically controlled by the United States and Europe. Both institutions have been and continue to be used as instruments of domination. The world resents this and this situation must change. The necessary democratization of these international financial institutions requires a change in the share system and the system for electing the respective Boards of Directors.

You bet. Let's see now. Hmm. (Snap fingers.) Why not let the recipient nations control the Boards. That way those greedy donor nations won't be able to be so damn controlling.

Brockman lets go with one barrage of Marxist or quasi-Marxist rhetoric after another. Climate change. Fresh water. Making the UN more "democratic." Assure that the will of "We the Peoples" cannot be ignored by sovereign states. Ya da. Ya da. Ya da.

Then the one time guerrilla fighter cuts to the chase. Terrorism. He has a take on the subject that would have warmed the heart of the Soviets and Castro back in the good ole days.

Terrorism and human rights. Any act of terrorism, whether or not it is committed by a Government, engenders more terrorism. Initiatives to stop this vicious cycle must begin at the level of State terrorism. Otherwise, the official struggle against terrorism perpetrated by individuals or organizations will lack moral authority and will never succeed in curbing what some see as nothing more than a defensive, albeit equally reprehensible, form of terrorism on the part of civil society. The question is how to overcome this vicious cycle of violence; towards that end, terrorism by powerful States against relatively weak States must stop.

There it is. The US, the West, Israel are the true terrorists. Unless and until these evil actors stop whatever it is they do that the Brockmanns of the world disapprove of there can be no effective "official struggle" against non-state actors.

Just in case the assembled Assembly didn't get his point, the priestly ex-guerrilla spelled it out.

No State should appropriate the right to decide on its own which States are terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism, and which are not. Less still should States that are guilty of wars of aggression, the worst form of terrorism imaginable, presume to arrogate that right unto themselves, and further, to unilaterally take action against those it has stigmatized.

All together now: Spell U-S-A.

Brockmann decompresses with some of the usual dabba-dabba-do about disarmament and the horrors of the nuclear arsenals now in existence. He neglects to say a word concerning the nuclear weapons being sought but as yet still unmade. Such as the Mahdi Bomb.

After genuflecting before the totems of gender equality and saving the children of the world, Miguel ends on a note that must seem reassuringly familiar to at least some Americans: "Change — real, credible change — is the watchword of the day."

No session of the UN General Assembly has been pleasant for Americans unless they are remarkably masochistic in their high mindedness for a mort of years. This one promises to be not only more of the same but a further descent into the recycled muck of the Cold War, the America-as-Evil-Empire rhetoric of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.

Come to think of it, those were Sr Brockmann's years of glory and ambition.

A further thought just struck the Geek. The sentiment of a realpoliker from the Italian Renaissance who wrote, "leave behind no wounded enemy."

It seems like the Reagan Administration did.