Month: November 2004
Havel & the UN
Instapundit has a remarkable vision: Vaclav Havel in Kofi Annan’s place.
Update:Chris Muir’s has returned and his Dec. 6th is on Havel (and Annan). (The link doesn’t seem to work; but our sympathy and thanks go to Mr. Muir, who has made many a moment happier.)
Update: Primary sources: Havel’s op-ed, Havel’s Taiwanese speech, Palous’s column.
Update: In another news story, Havel demonstrates that he certainly isn’t “campaigning” for the post and it also reveals his – it seems to me quite transparent and honest – perspective. (Or that to use Gerwitz’s point and Peggy Noonan’s words – he “has two of them”.) His respect for others is clearly not determined by power – in his op-ed, he takes those to task who would blame our hyper-power for their problems and here he declares his respect for the vulnerable. (More on both stories below)
Some people mistake bravery for standing up to a relatively benign management; others look at each situation and determine responsibility and solutions. The former are not brave; they are irresponsible and passive. Havel doesn’t make that mistake because he doesn’t take a perspective that concerns power as much as truth nor complaints as much as solutions.
Further update: The Czechs, aware of the similarity between Castro’s government and the one they knew quite well, are taking a stand on the EU reconsideration of ambassadorial sanctuary; see the WSJ column by ambassador Martin Palous. A former dissident in the Velvet Revolution, he presented the 1999 resolution condemning the Castro regime at the meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. He argues
Precisely because we lived a communist dictatorship and saw firsthand how totalitarian mechanisms worked to crush the spirit and the foundations of moral structures, we feel the obligation to speak up on behalf of the brave Cuban people. We know well their situation of being harassed, blackmailed, ridiculed, persecuted and jailed. From our own experience we also know the crucial importance of international pressure to the dissident struggle.
See Palous in a recent Texas visit.
Further Update: Nov. 29: Reynold’s editorial for WSJ.
Further Update: Dec. 1: Prompted by Rummel, checked out Diplomad. Entry on the UN by these saavy State Dept. types. It does, of course, take the attitude toward the UN of most of the commentators.
Meanwhile, however, bumperstickers have arrived (at a site with many links to other enthusiasts).
Havel’s eloquence both in his op-ed on the United Nations role and in Taiwan are excerpted in the extended entry:
Waste of my Time
There’s some sort of conference going on in Egypt right now. It’s supposed to be all about Iraq and nothing but. Predictably, though, the subject of Israel and the Palestinians was the only thing anyone wanted to talk about.
That’s what you get when you invite Arab dignitaries to any sort of “international conference.” They’ll start spouting off about Israel so no one will ask them about their own governments’ failings. We’ve seen it happen at the United Nations so many times that I doubt any of the delegates have written a new speech in 20 years.
France sent along envoys to the do, whuppty-freakin’-ding-dong. It’s not like they’ve been really supportive of our efforts in Iraq, or that they’ve even refrained from trying anything they could think of to stop us. The only thing that the presence of French delegates at the conference tells me is that the buffets in the executive dining hall must have been pretty well stocked.
Now France says that they want to help end violence in Iraq. A reasonable person would think that they’d send troops, help pay for efforts to hunt down terrorists, start pressuring Syria and Iran in order to slow down the flow of support for terrorism. I mean, what else would make a difference?
But France isn’t talking about doing any of that. Instead they want the Iraqi interim government to hold a big rally with the various political groups forming in Iraq. It would help voter turnout, they said. (They just say “meetings,” but I figure that you should do it right and have a big ol’ political rally with vendors selling T-shirts and overpriced convention food and rousing speeches and everything.)
Thank a lot, France! Democracy is saved due to your quick thinking and keen insight into the problem of forming new liberal democracies! After all, they have all that experience in forming democracies. They’re on their, what, 5th or 6th democratic government since the late 18th Century while we’re struggling along with the original?
Next time they should just have McDonald’s cater these affairs. I bet it would increase the signal-to-noise ratio something fierce.
Quote of the Day
In an era of general acceptance of deregulation and privatization, Mr. Spitzer has introduced the world to yet a new form of regulation, the use of the criminal law as an in terrorem weapon to force acceptance of industry-wide regulations. These rules are not vetted through normal authoritative channels, are not reviewable by any administrative process, and are not subject to even the minimal due-process requirements our courts require for normal administrative rule making. The whole process bears no resemblance to a rule of law; it is a reign of force. And to make matters worse, the regulatory remedies are usually vastly more costly to the public than the alleged evils.
–George Mason law school dean emeritus Henry Manne
Empathy
A reader left a comment and a link at this post, where I talk about how a friend of mine named Charles is dying of cancer after an active life spent as a sportsman. The link was to this news story, which talks about an incident where a man wearing hunting gear was asked to leave private land. The trespasser opened fire on the owner and his guests who were there at the time. 5 people are dead, and three others are wounded.
What did my anonymous reader want to say about this terrible act of murder?
“I say give ´em all the guns they want.”
I’ve seen this attitude before, most recently amongst supporters of England’s ban on fox hunting. The rhetoric can get pretty thick, with people who want to ban hunting comparing it to rape or serial killing. When innocent human beings are murdered while taking part in the sport, they can’t help but let their satisfaction show through childish gloating.
Considering the post where he left his comment, the only thing I can say is that my reader is very wise to remain nameless. I’m sure that he would come up 2nd best if compared to Charles in any way, and no one wants to be humiliated.