Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Mona Juul, a high-ranking Norwegian diplomat, wrote this confidential internal memo to her country's Foreign Ministry. The leading Norwegian daily Aftenposten published it yesterday.
A brutally frank memo from a high-ranking Norwegian diplomat to the United Nations leaked this week, ripping Ban Ki-moon's performance to shreds. The evidence against the U.N.'s feckless leader is mounting.
Conor Foley has a message for the international community: Humanitarian interventions rarely work. His recent book promoting that thesis, The Thin Blue Line, was reviewed by James Traub in Foreign Policy’s November/December 2008 issue. In this interview, Foley talks about Iraq, Darfur, and the conundrum of humanitarian reform.
Foreign-policy heavyweights on both the left and the right are calling
for a new League of Democracies. One day, they say, it could replace
the United Nations. But such a plan rests on the false assumption that
democracies inherently work well together -- or that anyone besides the
United States thinks it's a good idea.
Newspaper headlines consistently remind us of the failures coming out
of Iraq. The number of U.S. soldiers who have lost their lives
continues to climb. The deaths of Iraqi civilians far exceed what
almost anyone expected. And insurgent attacks are growing stronger and
more deadly. But, if wars always produce losers, it is also true that
most wars have a fair share of winners, too. So, we would like to ask,
four years into the fighting, what institutions, countries, ideas, or
individuals are better off because of the war? Who, in essence, are
Iraq's winners? Plus, a special essay by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
Iran is commanding the world's attention as the ayatollahs accelerate their
race for the bomb. But the timetable for talks -- or a nuclear crisis -- is not
being shaped by centrifuges, uranium, or reactors. It's about the security only a
barrel of oil can provide.
The United Nations has failed to produce a balanced set of enforceable
rules to regulate the human rights impact of multinational
corporations, squandering an opportunity to bolster public trust in
Bureaucratic. Ineffective. Undemocratic. Anti-United States. And after
the bitter debate over the use of force in Iraq, critics might add "useless" to the list of adjectives describing the United Nations. So
why was the United Nations the first place the Bush administration went
for approval after winning the war? Because for $1.25 billion a
year -- roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours -- the United Nations
is still the best investment that the world can make in stopping AIDS
and SARS, feeding the poor, helping refugees, and fighting global crime
and the spread of nuclear weapons.