![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
A Peace of the United Nations
Posted by Stephen Green · 28 March 2003
The United Nations was forged in the waning months of World War II, largely due to the will of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was made up of the “victorious nations” of the Allied side, and aimed to use their power in concert to promote and maintain the peace. Churchill went along mostly because he already realized the UK’s shrunken role in the new world, and to help maintain the “special relationship” with the US. Strangely enough, Stalin was completely uninterested, but was eventually brought on board with the promise of three votes, instead of the customary one nation, one vote rule. (Little Known Fact: The USSR got a vote, but so did the supposedly “independent” SSRs of Ukraine and Byelorussia. That was Stalin’s price to join, and FDR paid it.) China hopped on board because UN membership would guarantee her borders against future European or Japanese colonialism. France joined because, hey, someone was willing to call them a victor. Supposedly, Germany, Italy, Japan and the minor Axis powers were conquered by these new United Nations. In reality, each individual nation set up shop pretty much wherever they found they had soldiers when the fighting stopped. Russia didn’t get a say in Japan because there weren’t any Russian boots on the Home Islands. We didn’t get any say over Poland, because there was nothing but Russian soldiers there. “Nobility,” the victors must have thought, “and a truly united effort can wait until after the next war. You know, after we get an ugly headquarters built in New York and throw away thousands of parking tickets with a Gallic shrug.” And so we got ourselves an Iron Curtain, a Cold War, a nuclear-arms race, a semi-remilitarized Japan, wars in Vietnam and Korea and Afghanistan and. . . well, you know the rest. It was a bad fifty years, with some really scary times, and a lot of people killed for some questionable reasons. But it could have been worse. Lots worse. Let’s pretend for a moment that Germany and Japan had been placed under a UN mandate, rather than governed directly by the victors. There would never have been a West Germany to act as the economic powerhouse driving Europe’s postwar boom – the Soviets would have vetoed any attempt by Britain, France, and the US to merge their Occupation Zones into the new Bundesrepublik. Building a West German army to act as the first line of defense against possible Soviet aggression would have been almost impossible. The Marshall Plan would have missed the heart of Europe. (Marshall Plan dollars were offered in equal measure to Eastern Europe, but Stalin refused.) In fact, if all of Germany were under UN mandate, there might have been no legal reason to keep Russian soldiers in their Zone – the Red Army could have marched to the Rhine without having had to fire a single shot. If you think France is bad today, imagine how France would behave with Third Shock Army at their doorstep. There would have been no NATO, for what is NATO without West Germany, and a France that had given up before the Cold War started? Britain would have been our Cuba off the coast of very Red Europe. And Japan? No Japan, Inc. No Sony, no Nintendo, no Honda, no Mitsubishi. Could a free, inventive economy really have prospered in a nation where the Soviets could veto every new measure of Macarthur’s postwar constitution? And without free use of Japanese bases, the Korean War would have ended in weeks, with a North Korean victory. With no South Korea, and with a muddled Japan, we would have found ourselves greatly weakened in the north Pacific. Forget Korea’s DMZ – we’d have been too busy patrolling Alaska. I’ll let you figure out the rest of the repercussions on your own – but I dare you to find any realistic positive outcomes. Perhaps in 1945 a moral case could have been made in allowing the United Nations to run the peace. We fought, if not under the UN banner, then at least under the UN name. Or so FDR kept insisting in his public addresses. Perhaps -- in 1945. But not today. This month the UN failed in its duty to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq. Having failed in that, it also failed to do anything to support the necessary war. And now Kofi Annan wants a say in how we run postwar Iraq. France wants US dollars to pay for UN projects, in a country where US blood was spilled to liberate. That makes about as much sense as it would have if we’d turned over Germany and Japan to the UN back in '45. The United Nations is a lousy way to run a war – and an even worse way to run the peace. Comments
Stephen: I think the Left will disagree w/ a fundamental assumption: How bad was Soviet/Stalinist Russia likely to be? You think I"m kidding? Remember, this is the same coterie that believes that our A-bomb was dropped, not to compel Japanese surrender, but to cow Moscow. And that our non-acquiescence in a Soviet "sphere of influence" in Eastern Europe was somehow the precipitating factor for the Cold War (b/c it made Stalin paranoid). So, in their view, UN occupation would lead to the following: 1. Soviet Union not overly paranoid. On a related note, it is interesting that the Soviets attempted to do precisely what you described in Japan; namely, interfere with the occupation/reconstruction. MacArthur not so politely made it clear: We paid for this country, and we damn well intend to run it as necessary. This, perhaps, offers a precedent for Iraq? We paid for it, we're damn well going to run it as it needs to be run. One wonders what the French equivalent would be to flooding the Western zones w/ counterfeit marks would be? Posted by: Dean at March 28, 2003 12:38 AMDean, I know you're right about how some on the Left would perceive this scenario, but I asked for realistic repurcussions. (g) Imagine a Soviet Union with ALL of Germany's wealth to exploit, rather than just the Eastern Zone. Shudder. Posted by: Stephen Green at March 28, 2003 12:43 AM"Ah, but we'll never know, will we?"---Standard refrain from those people. Actually, one of my grad school profs raised the following nightmare: Imagine if (this was in the late 1980s) the Soviets and the Japanese had reached an accommodation of some sort. Say, Soviet oil and energy in exchange for Japanese technology. T-72s and T-80s with modern vetronics, including ballistic computers and laser range-finders. Soviet missiles with miniaturized sensors (so their warheads could be that much bigger). Soviet aircraft w/ modern avionics. Fortunately, of course, that never came to pass, either. What was funny was that he always believed that there would be a rapprochement between Tokyo and Moscow---did you know that those two states have YET to sign a peace treaty formally ending WWII between them??? Posted by: Dean at March 28, 2003 12:58 AMAs I recall, there were plans for a Moscow/Tokyo peace summit a couple years after the 1990 "4+2" negotiations which (finally!) ended WWII in Europe. But the talks never got off the ground, because of four small, barren islands off Hokkaido that the Soviets took fair and square (along with "Karafuto") in August '45. Neither side would budge. So almost 60 years later, Russia and Japan have yet to sign a formal peace treaty. Posted by: Stephen Green at March 28, 2003 01:03 AMStephen, I'd like to humbly suggest that you print this article and snail-mail it to Blair. He may yearn to be post-national, but I think he's just too darn smart to ignore the truth if someone put it to him that way. Much as I respect and and admire Blair for sticking to his guns at great risk to his politcal career, that 18th resolution attempt should be the last counterproductive thing we do for Blair. The UN (and France in particular) need to pay for holding up our attempts to straighten out Iraq. Personally, I thing the question of whether or not we freeze the UN out of the rebuild, but whether or not we completely pull out of UN and kick them out of New York. (which Den Beste opined in an earlier column would probably put an end to it.) Posted by: MarkD at March 29, 2003 10:18 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Smart, sexy, funny, and exceptionally well written. I hate this guy."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |