UN celebrates UN day--this is not an Onion headline

So the UN turns 60 today. Happy Birthday UN! I can't really reflect too much on what the UN has done, cause well I'm american, thus was never meant to understand the UN that well. I'm supposed to understand that somehow communists or terrorist sympathizers are in control of the UN, and that the UN hates america and we pay all this money to poor countries and they still hate us.

And I don't remember Boutros-Boutros Gali, whatsoever. He was the Secretary General of the UN before Kofi Annan; he "left" office in 1996 (I was 17 at the time, in high school learning about government) but I couldn't tell you anything about the person. But here is something he wrote in his memoirs about his time as Secretariat:

It would be some time before I fully realized that the United States sees little need for diplomacy; power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy. [...]But the Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy Nor does the United States. Diplomacy is perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and sign of weakness.' (1999)

To me, this illustrates of two things: 1) Memoirs are useful resources. Those political figures no longer in power can be a bit more (and sometimes a lot more) candid about their feelings and experiences, and we get a glimpse into how things really operate. 2) It took BBG 'some time' to realize the US' imperial ambitions. So even with someone in that high of a position (however much power you believe the secretary general has, it's still a high profile gig) they don't realize how much power politics comes into play.

But why? He couldn't have believed that the US is an honest broker, really striving for world peace, did he? Well, regardless, the US got rid of him, and put in Kofi, a little bit more pliable shall we say to US interests.

Later in 1996, the US removed Boutros-Ghali from office. Fourteen votes were cast in favour of a full second term; the United States cast its veto. Despite the resistance of France, the US was eventually able to have its own candidate Kofi Annan nominated. Boutros-Ghali's last accomplishment as Secretary-General was An Agenda for Democratization. It can be read also as a reaction to what he perceived as the imerialist behaviour of the US. More than half of this text was dedicated to 'decomocraitzation at the international level'. As he explained in his memoirs, 'the fact that a single vote-that of the United States-could dictate the outcome at the United Nations threatened hopes for increasing democratization on the international scene.'

Today, the fashion in the media is to talk about reform of the UN: Oil for Food Scandals, general corruptions and inefficiencies, and most recently, the alleged rewriting of the report about the investigation into the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

But this is the Red-Herring: this is the old, "Look over there at what they're doing, and not what we're doing." The power, as Mr. Boutrous-Gali found out, lies with the US, and not the UN. Of course there are problems with the UN, but it's counterproductive to keep looking at the UN when the US is preventing peace from breaking out all over the globe.

On the NPR I heard some UN official summarizing (one can never talk for more than 30 sec on NPR) the accomplishments of the UN. He said the UN had passed a resolution in the 1970's that called zionism a rasict ideology, and I thought, "alright, hooray for the UN, and hooray for him saying that on NPR". But he wasn't finished, because the accomplishment was actually scratching that resolution...I wonder how that happened.

But check this out, here is a link to sign up to daily UN briefs, keep you updated (if you're not already) on the world outside the US http://www.smartbrief.com/un_wire/index.jsp