Legitimizing the U.N. & Iran…Again

I was in the gym this evening, watching a bit of news about the Iranian president’s speech earlier today, and what should come up on the station I was watching? That America has admitted to the size of its nuclear stockpile.

I was rather torn with my initial reaction- the national security hawk in me was upset at this potentially (though not likely) harmful release of information. However, the libertarian side of my brain was glad that the American people would have just that much more knowledge about what the government has for weaponry.

Unfortunately, I then got a shock: apparently, it was done to pressure Iran regarding its own nuclear ambitions. According to the Associated Press:

The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and “several thousand” more retired warheads awaiting the junkpile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.

The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

I understand the basic idea- show a willingness to be reasonable, and perhaps other countries will back us. However, given that the United Nations just gave Iran a position on its Commission on the Status of Women, I would say this shows the very severe lack of seriousness on the part of the U.N. leadership regarding the rights of women; holding Iran accountable for anything; and for the future prospects of stopping Iran’s nuclear program. It appears the Obama administration doesn’t understand this, and thus how useless its own gestures of outreach are.

Chavez Sets The New International Standard?

This is what I propose: If Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, says something positive about someone, the United Nations should seriously consider deeming that person a human rights violator.

There are pros and cons, of course. Cons include that since Chavez is unpredictable and- according to some- insane, he might actually support someone who isn’t a mass murderer or dictator (he paid a backhanded compliment to President Obama, for example). Pros, however, include the ability to get rid of the Human Rights Council (since Chavez will be doing their job for them) and getting rid of some of what will now be?extra effort and cost?in worldwide intelligence gathering.

All in all, not a bad trade-off, methinks.