The House means business...
...when it comes to the U.N.
Culminating years of frustration with the performance and behavior of the
United Nations, the House voted Friday to slash U.S. contributions to the world body if it does not substantially change the way it operates.
The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts, was a strong signal from Congress that a policy of persuasion wasn't enough to straighten out the U.N.
"We have had enough waivers, enough resolutions, enough statements," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the author of the legislation. "It's time we had some teeth in reform."
The usual suspects, of course, are predictably indignant.
Here's something I don't understand about liberals. Off the record, many of them will acknowledge when pressed that yes, the U.N. has a lot of problems and yes, it would be nice if they'd straighten themselves out.
They'll admit it needs reforming in the abstract, but they'll oppose any actual attempt to effect real reform. They invariably oppose anyone like John Bolton because he might actually, you know, say something about the U.N.'s problems, and Kofi Annan might overhear and get his feelings hurt. Similarly, they oppose any kind of incentive (such as this House bill) to help prod the U.N. along.
So what do they want to do, exactly? If it's not okay to send blunt-spoken reformers and it's not okay to use any kind of pressure, how should we help transform the world body into what it aspires to be, as opposed to the hive of scum and villainy it is?
Don't like our ideas? Fine, let's hear yours. Otherwise, well, if you aren't willing to lead or follow, then kindly get out of the way.