Unfettered Letters

U.N. peacekeepers honored

Last Saturday, almost 100 people were at the Truman Library and Peace Plaza for remembrance of U.N. peacekeepers who sacrificed their lives to mediate disputes around the world. The first such peacekeeping force was deployed by President Truman in 1948 with the newfound State of Israel.

People at this tribute included representatives from the offices of Sen. Claire McCaskill and U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the mayor of Independence and a teacher with some of her students from Hickman- Mills School District (during summer vacation). Absent were any radio or TV station or, to my knowledge, anyone from the print media.

This is sad, for we are not just citizens of Kansas City but citizens of the world. We become more aware of our world and our place in it when we are connected with such events and they are shared with the people of our community by the media.

Patrick Devine
Overland Park

Iraq war is no job for U.N.

John Gaines (4/8, Letters) thinks the U.S. needs to pursue a course to turn the Iraq situation over to the United Nations.

Turning Iraq over to a corrupt agency like the U.N. would be a huge mistake. The U.N. stood by when ethnic cleansing killed tens of thousands in Darfur, and hundreds of thousands in Somalia. It also elected Cuba, which has one of the worst human rights records in the world, to its Human Rights Commission.

It invited Yasser Arafat, a terrorist, to speak at the General Assembly in 1974. It also had a little “bookkeeping” problem in the Oil for Food Program.

Yes, we are in a bad situation in Iraq, and yes, we probably have a few more rough years. But we can’t dishonor the lives of our lost servicemen and women by throwing our hands in the air and passing the job to a defunct organization like the U.N.

Dave Bornsen
Blue Springs

Family planning funds

Bravo for your Sept. 26 editorial lambasting the Bush administration for not releasing funds to the U.N. Population Fund (“Playing politics with family planning”). The poorest, most vulnerable women in the world are paying the price.

One hundred eighty countries contributed to Population Fund last year, but not the United States of America. For shame.

When Bush first did this in 2002, Lois Abraham and I were so angry that we started asking 34 million of our fellow citizens to take a stand with $1. The group called 34 Million Friends (www.34millionfriends.org) has raised a healthy $3.6 million, much of which has gone for family planning, commodities and training of health-care workers and midwives.

We are sending a nice message to the world from the American people.

Jane Roberts
Redlands, Calif.

Editor’s note: The 34 Million Friends Web site describes it as a “a grass-roots movement that was independently initiated in July 2002 by two American women, Lois Abraham of New Mexico and Jane Roberts of California. Although they had never met, Lois and Jane were both outraged by the United States withdrawal of $34 million approved for UNFPA and they decided to take action.”

Defending the U.N.

I disagree with Stephen Bailey’s letter (7/27) suggesting that the United States cut aid to the United Nations.

Despite the “anti-U.S.” stance the U.N. seems to take often, without it the world would be a different, far more dangerous place.

The U.N. was established at the end of World War II to give nations a forum and a way to work with other nations, replacing the system of competing national alliances that got us into not one, but two world wars in the 20th century. Despite its faults, the U.N. has succeeded in keeping these alliances to a minimum in its 60-plus-year history.

If the U.S. were to pull out of the U.N. to pursue its interests unilaterally, other countries would do the same. All would form alliances to best suit their own interests, and the U.N. would effectively be dead.

When this happens, we will be headed down the same path that led to the mega-wars of the 20th century, only this time the big boys all have nukes. In my mind, this makes the U.N. something we cannot afford to be without.

Randy Dudley
Kansas City

Cut U.N. and foreign aid

Dear President Bush:

For too many years, the United States has tried to buy friendship around the world through the means of foreign aid. Judging from the voting records of our so-called friends in the United Nations, we have not been very successful.

I suggest the following:

Politely inform the U.N. that the lease in New York will expire in five years, and they are expected to move out of the United States to another country. We have borne the burden too long. It is time to share.

Slowly begin to reduce foreign aid to all countries, perhaps by 5 percent per year.

Ask faith-based organizations, or other charitable groups, to pick up the slack by donations, if they so desire.

The fact that each and every American worker is currently on the hook for about $375,000 (See David M. Walker, U.S. comptroller general) for the promises made by our “spend it without regard for the future” Congress makes it mandatory that we start to reduce our outlays.

Reducing payments to the U.N. and gradually reducing foreign aid are two good places to start.

Stephen D. Bailey
Fairway

Brownback misguided

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback decries the situation in Darfur (3/5, Opinion). Of course, it is a tragedy, just like what occurred in Rwanda where 500,000 Africans were killed while the United Nations and United States stood by.

But wait a minute, senator. We are up to our eyeballs in trying to solve the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. American soldiers are being slaughtered and billions of dollars spent in a losing war. So why should you want to dump this problem on us?

The U.N., to which we contribute mega-millions every year, was supposed to be a peacekeeping entity. So why aren’t they solving this problem?

You say the American people have said, “Genocide will not be tolerated.” Since when do you care about what the American people say? We want our borders secured and no amnesty for lawbreakers, but you would leave the borders wide open and reward illegals.

Bob Dole said that when NAFTA was coming up for a vote, his phones were ringing off the hook for him to vote against it. So what did he do? He voted for it. Guess you are just following in his footsteps.

And to think, you want to become president.

R.J. Brown
Leawood

Turn to, reform United Nations

It seems to this observer, a veteran of World War II, that it is really questionable for this country to be involved in wars in Asia. It is the ancient site of civilizations, religions and practices that have spread over the world, and has seldom experienced defeat at the hands of outsiders. But conflicts do happen and tend to drag on.

There is a different avenue for hope. The United Nations was founded in 1945 to enhance international affairs and “to avoid the scourge of war.”

Though not having developed peacekeeping machinery as originally intended, it has grown to include essentially all nations and many successful, peace-oriented programs.

The United Nations, like all institutions, is not perfect. But we ought to approach it positively, working for reforms that will make it stronger and better able to resolve crises. We really need support from others to avoid a defeated withdrawal.

Bruce C. Cornish
Lee’s Summit

Turn to, support U.N.

It seems to this observer, a veteran of World War II, that it is really questionable for this country to be involved in wars in Asia. It is the ancient site of civilizations, religions and practices that have spread over the world, and it has seldom experienced defeat at the hands of outsiders.

But conflicts do happen and tend to drag on.

There is a different avenue for hope. The United Nations was founded in 1945 to enhance international affairs and to “avoid the scourge of war.” Though not having developed peacekeeping machinery as originally intended, it has grown to include essentially all nations and many successful, peacefully oriented programs.

The United Nations, like all institutions, cannot be perfect. But we ought to approach it positively, working for reforms that will make it stronger and better able to resolve crises.

We really need support from others to avoid a defeated withdrawal.

Bruce C. Cornish
Lee’s Summit

Warning to all nations

The editorial regarding the Kofi Annan’s speech (12/12, “United Nations faltered under Annan’s shortcomings”) was, at the least, very disappointing.

As one of the invited guests in attendance, I found the writer’s reasoning regarding Annan’s shortcomings weak and one-sided.

The United Nations is led by its secretary-general, but it acts under the direction of its member states, which have an obligation to act responsibly and to demonstrate willingness to abide by the rules of the international community.

With regard to the genocide in Darfur, Annan and Jan Egeland, U.N. emergency relief coordinator, have repeatedly warned that the international community and the U.N. member states have not lived up to their responsibilities there.

They have said the same about Iraq, Gaza and other hot spots.

Annan was right to warn the international community that the very notion of an “international community” — upon which the United Nations stands — is threatened if a superpower such as the United States chooses to “go it alone,” refuses to cooperate and acts only on self-interest.

His speech was not critical only of the United States. Rather, it was a warning to all that only global action through the United Nations will resolve the world’s greatest challenges in the 21st century.

Manny Pedram
director, Global and Multicultural Education Center
Kansas City

Annan’s views on U.S.

Kofi Annan’s remarks at the Truman Library (12/12, A-1) represented both a reaction on the part of the rest of the world to the current American foreign policy — our sharp turn away from the United Nations and our go-it-alone war in Iraq — and wise advice from a true friend.

It is important that our current administration hear those comments. As the world’s sole superpower, we cannot fall into “might makes right” jingoism. Rather, we must constantly question the justice of our actions.

We must consider the difference between “we can” and “we should” and ask whether any commitment we undertake is worth the sacrifices that it implies for America — first in lives, then in wealth.

Then we must come to the most realistic assessment possible of the consequences of our actions for the rest of the world. And that implies a real knowledge of the rest of the world.

We must consider the opinions and seek the aid of other countries in extending our influence.

That is democracy, and that is “the way forward” — at home, in Iraq and in the world.

John Van Horn
Kansas City