Today was arguably the United Nations at its best. I know that sounds odd, since the day was dominated by the insane musings of Muammar Qaddafi. But while there is plenty wrong with the United Nations--and while liberals tend to overestimate both its moral legitimacy and what it can realistically accomplish--the international body does serve at least one genuinely valuable function: It provides a place where leaders and their representatives can gather in one spot and speak their minds--clarifying for the world who these leaders are and what, exactly, they believe.
That was what happened today with Qaddafi. Conservatives will probably offer his 90-minute-long rant as more evidence for the pointlessness of the U.N. But I would argue that it proves the opposite. It's been all too easy to forget in recent years that Qaddafi is an unadulterated lunatic. He agreed to disband his nuclear program back in 2003. He got published on the op-ed page of The New York Times. (Then his son did.) He became head of the African Union, and other African leaders seemed perfectly willing to ratify the veneer of respectability he was acquiring.
An anecdote that illustrates this: In June, as part of a group of journalists traveling with the International Reporting Project, I met Kenya's prime minister, Raila Odinga, at his home in Nairobi. I asked Odinga whether he thought the African Union--given that it was now headed by Qaddafi, a notorious human rights abuser, and given how many other dictators were part of the organization--could possibly play a constructive role in promoting human rights. In response, he offered a persuasive critique of the A.U., pointing out that some African leaders were hesitant to criticize each other on human rights because of their own records. For instance, he said, "people like Robert Mugabe will be treated with kid gloves" at the A.U. "Why? Because a number of the heads of state going there are carrying the same baggage, like Mr. Mugabe. You'll find one of them, President Bongo of Gabon, will say that, 'Oh, Mr. Mugabe, he conducted elections--one election--therefore he's the president.' You see? Because that is what he does in his own country." A good answer, I thought. But while Odinga had called out Mugabe and Bongo, he had not mentioned Qaddafi, the one leader about whom I had specifically asked. So I followed up: "Are you frustrated that the organization is led by Qaddafi?" At which point, Odinga smiled, and said simply, "I don't want to comment on the head of a state which has got a diplomatic relationship with Kenya."
So there you have it: For the number-two official in Kenya--a country that is one of the key players in African politics and a democracy--Mugabe and Bongo (who, it so happens, died the next day) were far enough outside the realm of respectability that they could be safely criticized. Qaddafi, apparently, was not--even though he is every bit the brutal dictator that Mugabe is and Bongo was (Libya is actually less free than Zimbabwe or Gabon, according to Freedom House), and even though he himself has not extended much courtesy to his fellow African leaders over the years (for instance, during his decades-long bid to conquer Chad).
Which brings me back to the United Nations. Qaddafi's rant today was so embarrassing (introduced as the "King of Kings of Africa," he held forth on topics like the JFK assassination and the origins of swine flu) that it should help to remind the world just how crazy he is, and just how little he deserves the aura of quasi-respectability he has somehow acquired. And if that happens, then hasn't the United Nations arguably done a valuable service--simply by giving a nutty dictator the stage and letting him tell us what is on his mind?
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (8)
Let me get this straight, a lunatic gives a pointless speech that no one listens to and everyone ignores and this validates the millions of dollars spent on the United Nations.
I'm a little busy. Next time let's set up a confernce call or Web-Ex this and he can e-mail me the Powerpoint Slides.
Diplomacy really isn't working too well right now. I can't remember a significant diplomatic accomplishment in the last 40 years. The Soviet Union collapsed, China found capitalism and the European Union finally afer 50 years of trying agrees on a common currency. All on their own.
Might be time to use the recession as an excuse to cut the Diplomacy Budget and start investing the savings elsewhere.
Let me get this straight, a lunatic gives a pointless speech that no one listens to and everyone ignores and this validates the millions of dollars spent on the United Nations.
I'm a little busy. Next time let's set up a confernce call or Web-Ex this and he can e-mail me the Powerpoint Slides.
Diplomacy really isn't working too well right now. I can't remember a significant diplomatic accomplishment in the last 40 years. The Soviet Union collapsed, China found capitalism and the European Union finally afer 50 years of trying agrees on a common currency. All on their own.
Might be time to use the recession as an excuse to cut the Diplomacy Budget and start investing the savings elsewhere.
You spell it Qaddafi and Mike spells it Gaddafi. I spell it Kaddafi and my next door neighbor's baby sitter spells if Haddafi. Does that mean anything important? Is the world safer spelling it one way rather than another? Or is it a metric system thing?
A ranter, eh? On a scale from, say, Rush Limbaugh to Adolph Hitler, who is he closest to? And is it possible to ascribe the words "eloquent ranter" to President Obama? Or does he still specialize only in bravura bromides?
I read excerpts from Barack's collection of homilies at the U.N. Few say nothing at all quite as grandiloquently as the Great Rhetoritician. I can call him this now that we know his campaign promises were complete bullshit.
Go ... view full comment
You spell it Qaddafi and Mike spells it Gaddafi. I spell it Kaddafi and my next door neighbor's baby sitter spells if Haddafi. Does that mean anything important? Is the world safer spelling it one way rather than another? Or is it a metric system thing?
A ranter, eh? On a scale from, say, Rush Limbaugh to Adolph Hitler, who is he closest to? And is it possible to ascribe the words "eloquent ranter" to President Obama? Or does he still specialize only in bravura bromides?
I read excerpts from Barack's collection of homilies at the U.N. Few say nothing at all quite as grandiloquently as the Great Rhetoritician. I can call him this now that we know his campaign promises were complete bullshit.
Go ahead, try it yourself.
And pointing out how African leaders don't call each other out on human rights violations because they all do it reminds me of how few Republicans and Democrats call each other out for being so far up Wall Street's sphincter: Because they're all up there.
Well, except rhetorically, of course. You know, the Democrats at election time.
gw
Hardly surprised that African leaders cover up for each other. It’s akin to a secret society, except in this case their membership is public knowledge. Raila Odinga's reluctance to diss Qaddafi could be more than the usual CYA the corrupt African leaders club operate under, he could be genuinely scared of Qaddafi who, after all, is well known for the long reach of his goon squad.
Still, that was a shameful display by the Kenyan prime minister. His father - the indomitable Oginga Odinga - must be spinning in his grave. The old man was neither as weak-kneed nor as corrupt.
Hardly surprised that African leaders cover up for each other. It’s akin to a secret society, except in this case their membership is public knowledge. Raila Odinga's reluctance to diss Qaddafi could be more than the usual CYA the corrupt African leaders club operate under, he could be genuinely scared of Qaddafi who, after all, is well known for the long reach of his goon squad.
Still, that was a shameful display by the Kenyan prime minister. His father - the indomitable Oginga Odinga - must be spinning in his grave. The old man was neither as weak-kneed nor as corrupt.
The UN is a cesspool of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. It sole purpose is to protect the interests of Third World dictators. The US should withdraw from the UN and throw it out of this country.
If you lie down with pigs you become a pig. The UN is a sty.
Look at Gaddafi's psychotic face. For that matter look at Nancy Pelosi's grimacing mug, or the moronic snout that passes for a face in the case of Congressman Henry Waxman. Any of them is enough to make a buzzard puke. Birds of a feather.
The UN is a cesspool of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. It sole purpose is to protect the interests of Third World dictators. The US should withdraw from the UN and throw it out of this country.
If you lie down with pigs you become a pig. The UN is a sty.
Look at Gaddafi's psychotic face. For that matter look at Nancy Pelosi's grimacing mug, or the moronic snout that passes for a face in the case of Congressman Henry Waxman. Any of them is enough to make a buzzard puke. Birds of a feather.
In response to iambiguous:
ـThe problem you point out of the Colonel's name is a fair one to make: what, exactly, is it? Well, it's all of them. Arabic is a very old and very broadly spoken language with a lot of regional differences. Depending on whether you're thinking in Modern Standard Arabic (the Queen's English of the language), or one of several possible Libyan dialects, the initial "qaaf" in his surname ـقَـذافـي may be heard as a back-throat Q, a K, a hard G, or an aspirated H. So, annoyingly, everyone is right. Having said that, it's worth noting that Libyans tend to pronounce qaaf like a hard "G", while the man himself seems to pronounce his name with more of a "K". But r ... view full comment
In response to iambiguous:
ـThe problem you point out of the Colonel's name is a fair one to make: what, exactly, is it? Well, it's all of them. Arabic is a very old and very broadly spoken language with a lot of regional differences. Depending on whether you're thinking in Modern Standard Arabic (the Queen's English of the language), or one of several possible Libyan dialects, the initial "qaaf" in his surname ـقَـذافـي may be heard as a back-throat Q, a K, a hard G, or an aspirated H. So, annoyingly, everyone is right. Having said that, it's worth noting that Libyans tend to pronounce qaaf like a hard "G", while the man himself seems to pronounce his name with more of a "K". But really, there's no good answer.
Thanks for the information, bacchant.
Perhaps journalists and talkingheads should find out how the colonel spells his name and what particular Libyan dialect he uses for pronouncing it. Is it asking too much to call the man the way he calls himself?
Thanks for the information, bacchant.
Perhaps journalists and talkingheads should find out how the colonel spells his name and what particular Libyan dialect he uses for pronouncing it. Is it asking too much to call the man the way he calls himself?
In response to bulbman1066:
You need to slow down and stop with the dramatic silly statements. A face cannot be psychotic; a person can be, if they've lost their grip on reality, but that's different. Using the phrase "moronic snout" is not only insulting -- doubtless your intent, since insults seem to be your thing -- but also either nonsensical or purely metaphorical. Either way, it sounds flat-footed. "Birds of a feather," indeed -- aren't you late for the meeting of the Nasty Society? I can hear them calling you.
In response to bulbman1066:
You need to slow down and stop with the dramatic silly statements. A face cannot be psychotic; a person can be, if they've lost their grip on reality, but that's different. Using the phrase "moronic snout" is not only insulting -- doubtless your intent, since insults seem to be your thing -- but also either nonsensical or purely metaphorical. Either way, it sounds flat-footed. "Birds of a feather," indeed -- aren't you late for the meeting of the Nasty Society? I can hear them calling you.
Regarding spelling of the name ... I recall reading a newspaper article ages ago (Reagan was still President I think) that was reporting on an elementary school class that had all written letters to the Colonel. It seems we had recently bombed Tripoli or something and the teacher took the opportunity for a civics lesson. Bombing - > children's letters, you know?
As it turned out, he replied. The article took note of the fact that in his reply, he spelled his name with a "G", perhaps settling the matter.
Regarding spelling of the name ... I recall reading a newspaper article ages ago (Reagan was still President I think) that was reporting on an elementary school class that had all written letters to the Colonel. It seems we had recently bombed Tripoli or something and the teacher took the opportunity for a civics lesson. Bombing - > children's letters, you know?
As it turned out, he replied. The article took note of the fact that in his reply, he spelled his name with a "G", perhaps settling the matter.