North Korea to Lead UN Talks on Disarmament

The rogue nation of North Korea has been chosen to lead the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.  Yes it is that time of the year again when people only recognize the United Nations as existing because of an outlandish decision to have a dictator lead a council which contradicts everything it stands for.

The United Nations have justified the appointment by stating that it was an "automatic rotation."  The defense of "Well, it's their turn" should no longer be accepted by the international body.  The Conference will report to the United Nations General Assembly which passes non-binding optional resolutions. 

A peace-keeping body such as the United Nations should have skipped over North Korea in light of several  military actions taken against South Korea over the past two years (minimum), it's continued attempts to create and grow a nuclear arsenal (contradictory?), and it's well documented ties to helping others grow theirs (see Syria, 2007).

If the United Nations wants to regain legitimacy in the American public and in places around the world where it's practices are being called into question, they must begin removing countries under sanction from chairing these important committees.  There is a clear conflict of interest in letting the ambassador from North Korea chair a committee on nuclear weapons.  The proper thing to do as an added diplomatic measure would have been to penalize the North Koreans by selecting the nation after them to chair the committee.

In order to keep the peace-keeping body around and to maintain a level of legitimacy by reforming the chair selection committee.  When the UN allows for these kind of events it adds fuel to the fire for its growing number of critics calling for an end to the body.  With principled reforms such as the one listed above and a few others we could have a legitimate place for diplomats to discuss peace, and make recommendations as to how this peace can be brought about.

Follow @mullrainee

Tweet

We May Have Missed Our Eisenhower

Roughly a half-century ago the former commander of the most important mission in World War II ran for and won the Office of the Presidency.  Dwight Eisenhower was a center-right President whom history has been very kind too.  The man was a tremendous leader of men and held personal responsibility in the highest regard.  There was an immense ground swell to make Eisenhower president after the Truman ended his presidency.

The same movement was around General David Petraeus.  Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions.  He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.

Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike.  They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals.  Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class.  He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security.  This experience will no doubt serve him well.

I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired.  I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China.  I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility.  Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.

I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary.  It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time.  Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus.  If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate.  He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen.  Giving him a fair chance.

However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history.  An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome.  It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.