Predatory neighbors have been a fact of life for the Afghan state throughout most of its history. In defense, Afghans have chosen both isolation and resistance. Today, openness and cooperation with regional powers offer the best prospects for security and economic progress for Afghanistan.
Conversely, the region's political stability and economic potential are broadly influenced by the ability of post-conflict Afghanistan to succeed in its recovery.
The region's opportunistic states are liable to revive their interventions in Afghanistan in the event of a faltering Kabul government or an international community that reneges on its commitments to help secure and rebuild the country. Already there are some indications that the forbearance shown by neighbors in recent years may be flagging.
Pakistan and Iran offer Afghanistan its most imposing and critical regional bilateral relationships. Whether they cooperate or create obstacles for Afghanistan's recovery is greatly influenced by American strategic policies in the region.
There is widespread belief among Afghans and others in the region that U.S. interest in the country will fade quickly once its major objectives in the region are realized. While an arguable expectation, perceptions alone are enough for many Afghan and regional power brokers to begin to hedge their bets in supporting the Karzai regime.
Afghanistan's emergence as a regional crossroads for trade and resource sharing in a post-Taliban era remains a distant though hopeful prospect. Endemic economic and physical constraints and retrogressive political developments block progress toward the region forming a vital new economic entity. Intro and Full report at link
Via DailyPundit.
If you are thinking of visiting France this summer, be forewarned. You will be paying more for your airline ticket, starting this July 1st, thanks to French President Jacques Chirac. With UN Secretary General Kofi Annans strong backing, Chirac has pushed forward a new tax on international airline tickets for passage from France ranging from about $5 to $50 a ticket depending on travel distance and ticket class, which is designed to be the precursor to an array of global taxes such as taxes on international financial transactions, fuel and the Internet.
Other countries such as Brazil, Chile and Norway are also getting on board with the new airline tax. Chirac and Annan justify putting their hands into our pockets as a necessary means to alleviate poverty and fight disease in the most undeveloped countries of the world, without any thought about how to guarantee that the monies raised will actually be used as intended and not end up in the Swiss bank accounts of those countries corrupt leaders....
#6
So folks will fly into London and take the chunnel over. They'll do it because the flight is cheaper and not even know why. This will hurt Air France.
I wonder if Jacque bought stock in British Airways or something.
Just what is wrong with you people? No matter how much time, trouble and federal tax money your betters expend trying to pound sense into your heads, you can't seem to absorb the most basic of political lessons. Why can't you understand that unreformed Talibans deserve a Yale education, why global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, or why the UN is the last, best hope of mankind? All of you, especially those who live in Middle America, should pay more attention to the greats who walk among us such as UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown.
Brown's patience with us is running out. But, like the UN gave Saddam another last chance and another and another, Brown is giving us one. A couple of weeks ago, Amb. John Bolton suggested that at the end of this year, when Kofi Annan leaves, his hand-picked staffers should leave with him. Sounds pretty reasonable. When Al Capone left, Frank Nitti, Ralph "Bottles" Capone and Jake "Greasy Thumb" Grizik also, ah, left. Last week, in apparent response to Bolton's comment, Brown went on a safari to preach to the ignorant serfs he believes make up America.
In a speech to a bunch of UN supporters, Brown delivered himself of the opinion that because the Bush administration is seeking to use the UN as a diplomatic tool, it has a duty to defend it against American critics, saying that if Bush didn't, "You will lose the UN one way or another." As if we had it to begin with. Brown said not only that the Bush administration was failing to lobby Americans to support the UN, but that its silence was misleading America. He claimed that the UN was "constructively engaged" on everything from Lebanon to Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue. But, he said, "that is not well known or understood in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News." We of The American Spectator take umbrage at having been left off that list.
The best thing that you can say about Brown's speech is that his condescension went over his audience's heads. They're Democrats, and ever eager to feel bad about America. They know that all you denizens of fly-over country don't count. You're too dumb to understand. None of them cares that you Heartlanders feed half the world and that your sons and daughters spend their lives in defense of freedom whenever they're called to do so. The UN is only concerned with rank, privilege, and expense accounts which you have a duty to sustain with the sweat of your brow. It's really a pity that when Kofi came to his pal's defense he didn't use the line perfectly suited for it: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
Brown said that the U.S., like other nations, "is beset by problems that defy national, inside-the-border solutions: climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, migration, the management of the global economy, the internationalization of drugs and crime, the spread of diseases such as HIV and avian flu." And what, pray, has the UN done about any of these things? Nothing, except its best to prevent American action to solve the most important problems facing civilization. Brown thinks UN control of the U.S. action is the benefit we get: UN management of global security issues meant "the give and take of multilateral bargaining, but any dilution of American positions was more than made up for by the added clout of action that enjoyed global support." It would have been very useful for Brown to list the occasions of that support we enjoyed, because none come to mind.
Amb. Bolton -- in the first remark from him I recall disagreeing with -- demanded Brown apologize. It would be much better if Brown didn't, because what he said was obviously both sincere and heartfelt. It's time for us to take seriously what Brown said and act upon it.
Shortly after 9-11, the UN claimed jurisdiction over the problem of terrorism. And in the nearly five years since, the UN hasn't even agreed on a definition of terrorism because the terrorist regimes are members in good standing. Algore's fave, the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, exempts some of the world's biggest polluters (such as Communist China) and puts the burden on the U.S. economy. Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- has been done by the UN about nuclear proliferation. The UN's only achievements are scandals great and small ranging from the largest financial rip-off in history ("Oil for Food"), child abuse in the Congo (UN peacekeepers raping young girls) and the millions of dollars stolen from the training budget of the World Meteorological Association. (Apparently even the UN weathermen are crooks). When we demand action to remedy problems, nothing is done. That, to Brownie, is our fault because of "the widely held perceptionâŠthat the U.S. tends to hold on to maximalist positions when it could be finding middle ground." Compromise your principles and you can do very well at the UN.
The UN budget is a horrific compilation of global pork-barreling. Its staff is at least twice the size it should be and their salaries are -- by design -- the highest of any government organization anywhere. And that's not nearly the worst of it. Our $3.5 billion in "mandatory" dues to the UN goes for such essentials as the General Assembly at which terrorists enjoy equal rights and privileges accorded civilized nations, million-dollar meetings of committees that want to create UN control of the Internet and every other anti-Western, anti-civilizational activity imaginable. We pay about another $3 billion in "voluntary" contributions to a long string of unaccountable UN agencies and to UN "peacekeeping" missions. Brownie, of course, insists that we've abandoned the UN because we're not donating even more money. "But the only government not fully supporting the project is the U.S. Too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years -- manifest in a fear by politicians to be seen to be supporting better premises for overpaid, corrupt UN bureaucrats -- makes even refurbishing a building a political hot potato." Unchecked UN bashing? If he could, Brown would end UN bashing by repealing the First Amendment. Brownie wants us to repent by picking up the multi-billion-dollar tab for the reconstruction. A much better solution would be for us to pay for construction of a new UN building anywhere outside the U.S. they want it.
Mark Malloch Brown's remarks were an honest expression of his deepest beliefs. He, like the rest of the UN's overpaid diplocrats, has only disdain for Americans and everything we stand for. Enough is enough. It's time to cut off the money to the unserious, uncapable, and unaccountable UN.
#1
Excellent article. I always knew that I (we) didn't count in the view of the elitists. It has never bothered me simply because I return the sentiment.
As for the quibble over Bolton demanding Brownie apologize, it is no matter - Annan supported the comments and criticisms. They stand and there is no danger they will buy a clue - the last paragraph says it all.
#2
They know that all you denizens of fly-over country don't count. You're too dumb to understand.
Even though I tend to agree with the bulk of the UN criticism advanced in the authors opinion, it seems to me Browns statement suggests just the opposite. By advocating that the US Tranzi crowd to be more strident in trumpeting the virtues of the UN to Middle America, it would appear that he recognizes the significance or their informed consent. If he truly believed that fly-over country was irrelevant why would he even make the statement in the first place? Im not sure why I should be offended by that.
#4
Depot Guy, It's not that he said that middle America is unimportant, (your point is right on)the insult is that he said middle America is uninformed, and therefore unaware of the U.N.s value. I have news for him. I know exactly what it's worth to the U.S.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
06/12/2006 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'm willing to bet the average fly-over country, knuckle-dragging red-stater has a better handle on what the UN really does, thanks to Rush and FoxNews, than does the average "progressive".
/Though I live in one of the bluest of blue states, I consider myself a transplanted knuckle-dragging red-stater.
#6
"I tend to agree with the bulk of the UN criticism advanced in the authors opinion..."
DepotGuy, are you saying you agree flyover-America IS ill-informed? Or what, exactly? You sort of skated over that bit, so a bit of clarification seems appropriate.
The UN took a wrong term decades ago since its operating rules were naively based upon a presumed level of honor and easily subverted by voting blocks - of dishonorable interests. It can't be "fixed" because such efforts will be voted down by these blocks, as the Human Rights Comm fiasco demonstrated clearly.
#7
DepotGuy, are you saying you agree flyover-America IS ill-informed? Or what, exactly? You sort of skated over that bit, so a bit of clarification seems appropriate.
Browns statement didnt appear to necessarily be a characterization that the average US citizen is ill-informed but to say that their perceptions of the UN are shaped more by the critics and less by the advocates. (Perhaps that might make them better informed?) And the US had an obligation to advance the positive aspects to its citizenry otherwise it would be viewed as taking advantage of the UN simply as a tool to advance their agenda only when convenient. Bottom line, Brown wasnt hired to develop an ambitious reform agenda he was hired to be nothing more then a diplomatic pitch guy. I equate his speech as a Sales manager rallying the troops by saying The competition is kicking our ass now get out there and sell em on Value! The problem is that there is a real arrogant implication that its not an inferior product but simply customer perception. (Especially arrogant when you are talking about the UN) I get the impression that the object of Boltons rancor wasnt a condescending statement about the average citizen but a senior UN official openly criticizing the US.
#8
Thanks, DepotGuy, I think I get your drift. I believe that they are infinitely more out of touch with reality, LOL, than flyover-America.
I've read several times here that every nation should act (solely?) in its own interests - the pragmatic view. Yet the UN charter was written in a time when many believed that honor would overcome such pragmatism and that the principled view would prevail. Well, that didn't happen. The UN has evolved into a craven pile of kleptocrats, IMO.
#9
I was taught as a child that the UN was a work-saving organization. I and everyone I knew collected money for UNICEF on Halloween, then turned in my full box (we added from our own pocket money, and whatever pennies my parents hadn't given out) at school. It took a serious effort on the part of the UN, and despite all the cheerleading of the New York Times, for me to see the UN for the danger it is. The Red-Staters just skipped the NYT stage, is all.
We Americans are results oriented, and the UN simply has not delivered on its promises, and in fact has been retrograde. Cheerleading by the US government cannot change that simple fact.
#1
AQ should make the selection using an "American Idol" format. Maybe they hire Simon, Paula, and Randy? Instead of singing the contestants would compete in "acid throwing", goat-buggering, seething, sawing, and chopping?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
