It was only three years ago that a bunch of Norwegians awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for, apparently, being Barack Obama. The world was told that finally, here was a man who understood diplomacy. Here was a man who would get results. There would be no more “coalitions of the willing” because a community organizer of first class temperament was in the White House. Hollywood stars wept, believing that the “dead” nation under George W. Bush was “alive” again with the ascension of Obama.
Fast forward to today, where Bashar al-Assad’s archipelago of torture chambers are open around the clock, the Syrian regime slaughters thousands and then lobs mortar shells into Lebanon when it gets bored. Russia sends in the tech, because no hellish reign of terror can be complete until people are mowed down with a Hind (the Grey Poupon of helicopter gunships). China sits on its hands while 14,000 people are executed and says, “I admire your work, Bashar. You’re a murderer after our collective heart.” All this is going on, and yet no one says, “Dude. What happened to Barry?”
Instead, the United Nations takes the blame.
Special U.N. envoy Kofi Annan acknowledged in an interview published Saturday that the international community’s efforts to find a political solution to the escalating violence in Syria have failed. …
“The evidence shows that we have not succeeded,” he told the French daily Le Monde.
Kofi Annan failed because he is a failure (unless he’s getting kick-backs from a billion dollar oil-for-food scandal). The United Nations failed because it is a failure. And the United Nations takes the rap this time around because George W. Bush isn’t available to play the fall guy.
When a Republican is in the Oval Office, it is his fault that dictators and thugs and despots act like dictators and thugs and despots. When a liberal Democrat is in office, the blame is dispersed amongst the “international community” to shield him from criticism. Furthermore, liberals seek to obscure the fact that, often times, the only thing that ruthless regimes respond to is the very real threat of force.
The United Nations as it currently exists is useless. It does not act to forward freedom and liberty and human rights throughout the world because it is largely comprised of nations that oppress their own people. Governments that treat their own people like dirt were never going respond well to “hope and change,” but that’s not a message that can easily penetrate the mushy mind of the quixotic college kid.
Does anyone doubt that if George W. Bush was still in office that there would be “die ins” on college campuses across the country, blaming him — and not Assad or his Shabiha “ghost” militias — for the carnage?
You can argue that we should let the Syrians kill each other and not get involved. (There’s a convincing case to be made, since the Islamic “rebels” might actually be worse than Assad’s goons if given half a chance.) You can argue that a “coalition of the willing” should play referee with its own military hardware. You can argue for a number of other strategies. But what you can’t do is deny that if George Bush was in office, commentators would track the Syrian body count with stunning accuracy, and each death would be framed as a referendum on the “failed” Bush foreign policy.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to read a few more reports of Hillary Clinton demanding Russia and China “get off the sidelines.” I need a good laugh.