As IF Times

link Chinas UN diplomat in drunken rant against Americans – Telegraph.

Staff were quick to brush this over as merely a rant initiated by too much fortified grape juice.  Actually, this is the most illuminating story to come out of the useless U.N.  in decades, if not ever.  It’s a poorly hidden secret that diplomacy is all about smiling in the face of your enemies until you can find a rock big enough to hit them over the head with. 

At the outset, the goal of the UN was to provide a civilized, structured forum for resolving issues between nations versus the historic option of waging war and destruction.  As some may know, this organization arose from the ashes of the precursor League of Nations, formed after WW1 in order to prevent world war from happening again.  This group disbanded upon the onset of WW2.  Since that didn’t work too well, the UN is actually the second attempt to play nicely among world nations.   At the end of WW2, the founding nations came together to create the structure we know today.  They included China, Russia, France, the UK and of course the United States.  The U.S. of course had the most money and military might at the time, so therefore the most influence.

Fast forward 65 years later and we notice that the peace loving founders find themselves at odds on many major policy issues, sort of like siblings that begin to resent each other.  Rather than work collectively for ‘world peace’ as per the original intent, they found themselves working to forward the best interests of their own nation states.  Resentment of the U.S.’s disproportionate power and financial influence has become more apparent as nations developed economically and increasingly flex their political muscle.   Except of course in the case of France.  They had resentment from the git go. 

So in this new atmosphere of increasingly equal national powers, the US has commensurately become isolated in their votes on major and minor policy issues.  The most notable dissension arises from the Americans’ support of Israel.  As of now, there is not so subtle competition going on for the world’s resources as everyone maneuvers to gain access to oil, commodities and markets.  Underneath the diplomatic veneer of civility at the UN are fierce battles to get or retain key strategic markets by all nations, notably by China and Russia.  The recent outburst by Sha Zukang is a diplomatic gaffe but lays bare the  resentment for the U.S. that is shared by all UN members.  

Here’s a suggestion.  Why don’t they serve drinks at all UN meetings?  Make it mandatory.  In this way, you can circumvent the charade of diplomatic negotiations and get to the nub of the matter.  You know the old Latin saying, ‘ in vino veritas’.  They’ll more quickly find out the various viewpoints and it won’t be couched in verbal gibberish.  This guy Sha has set new ground in political negotiations; he’s a no spin zone guy.  If you serve booze at the meetings instead of after, you’d likely have much more lively debates and quicker resolutions.   Plus, you wouldn’ t need armies of clerks, secretaries and interpreters to decipher what was said and what was meant.  

At the moment, the only people who are honest and candid about their intents are the ‘bad guys’ like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong, etc.  They make their positions clear.  Ahmadinejad says, ‘we want to nuke Israel’: the west responds with, “well let’s see if we can find some middle ground’.  Kim Jong sinks a South Korean ship: the west responds with, ‘well it’s an accident, anyone could have done it’.    If we brought booze into all UN meetings, you’d bring back some realism to political debate.  In the 60’s, the Soviet’s Nikita Kruschev achieved notoriety for banging his shoe on his desk at a meeting to get attention.  It’s unknown whether he was over-refreshed at the time, but it’s time we brought back some sincerity to political debate.

You may get the odd fist fight a la Taiwan’s parliament, but better at the UN than in the real world.

link Peggy Noonan: We Just Dont Understand – WSJ.com.

It ain’t him.  It’s the people.  When the candidate was first thrust into the larger public eye from the village politics of Illinois, he was immediately acclaimed to have the skill set and accomplishments of someone twice his age and experience.  In his own words, the rise of the oceans would slow, the earth would begin to heal yada yada yada.  Using a baseball analogy, he was a closer who was also expected to field balls and hit home runs as well.  Naturally, he is doomed to failure since he is only good at one small aspect of the game.

Barely two years after the coronation, even the ardent supporters are moving away from their blind support of the incumbent.  The 26 people who still watch David Letterman heard his wisecrack about the ‘one term president’ recently.  What changed?  It’s not as if the job description changed.  Put simply, our guy was never qualified for the job in the first place.  Without benefit of ANY meaningful business or administrative experience, the complex decisions that have to be considered as leader of the free world has left him floundering because of poor experience and poorer advisers. 

A perfect storm of disillusionment with the former President, the enormous influence of Oprah which mobilized an historically quiet demographic, a stalling economy and an extremely partisan media brought someone into office without sufficient scrutiny of his character.  Rather, all the various groups that supported his candidacy projected upon him their own versions of what kind of person he was.   The 1979 movie, Being There  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There) , featured Peter Sellers as a simple gardener, but was considered by his high society employer as some kind of savant because of his pithy and earthy responses to complex questions, eventually providing advice to the President of the United States.  A bitingly satirical movie has turned into real life only decades later.

Lots of barbs have been thrown at the President and that is expected of any politician.  Some criticisms are certainly deserved but many criticisms from his own fold are likely projections of disappointment by the people who had unrealistic expectations of his ability.  He just happened to be in the right spot at the time.  As is now obvious, talking is the easy part; the hard part is the doing.  Being there isn’t enough.  The President is not responsible for disappointing people; the people can only be disappointed with themselves.