No one owns the Podium of Nations

Madness is a bad thing especially when practiced on the world stage. It stands to reason, therefore, that we should believe extreme madness is even worse when practiced on the world stage or anywhere else.

And yet, it can be shown there are times when the way to solve an intractable problem is to let it run its course till it reaches the point of extreme absurdity where it will inevitably destroy itself. This may or may not happen, which is why a dilemma arises as to when we can step back, and when we should feel obliged to intervene and arrest an extreme madness that's trying to run its course.

Luckily, we have an example of publicly displayed madness we can study. We have the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune who can be thought of as the gift that keeps on giving. Time after time, these editors seize a topic and use it to push the envelop to such an extreme, they prove not that their recommendations are sound and must be followed, but that they are fallacious and must be rejected.

Their latest foray in this realm came under the title: “Podium for a potentate,” an editorial they published on October 9, 2016 on the website of their rag. In it, they discuss North Korea whose foreign minister addressed the United Nations General Assembly. Not only did the editors reject what he said; they did not like that he was allowed to speak at all. Believing it was madness to let him speak, they angrily denounced him and denounced his country and its leaders. In so doing, they came close to displaying their own state of madness.

Denouncing the situation in North Korea is not a hard thing to do, but what's insane is to be in favor of a concept one day and then reject it the next day simply because it now applies to someone we dislike. And this is what you see in the editorial of the Tribune. In fact, rather than concentrate on what's wrong in North Korea, the editors of the publication attributed sins to its leaders that didn't happened, and then attacked them for something they didn't do.

This is how the editorial begins: “North Korea is given a forum at which to threaten nuclear war … North Korea's foreign minister said the rogue nation will strengthen its nuclear capabilities in response to the US flying bombers over South Korea.” This is no worse a threat than to say “all options are on the table,” a phrase that's used incessantly by the editors of the Tribune and those like them. If it is insane for North Korea to say it will boost its defenses, including its retaliatory force to deter an enemy at its border, it is doubly insane to threaten the “obliteration” of Iran if it reneges on its contractual obligations.

And that's not all what's wrong with the editorial because it goes on to say: “...while ignoring Security Council resolutions.” If this deserves to be condemned, then Israel deserves to be condemned a thousand times more forcefully for the resolutions it has been ignoring since that same UN created it. But this was never the stance taken by the Tribune. In fact, its editors regularly run a feature under the heading: “U.N. Watch” in which they attack the world body for not cheering Israel when it commits horrible crimes against humanity.

The editors also cheer Secretary of State John Kerry for saying that the United States “has an obligation to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions.” If this is the case, those same editors should be urging the United States not to veto resolutions passed by the Security Council meant to regulate the behavior of Israel, but urge it to feel obligated to “enforce” them. However, that's something they will never do, which is why their words sound hollow, even ridiculous.

And they end the editorial with these words: “It is a mockery that the U.N. gives North Korea a podium paid for in large measure by the United States.” Well, like every international institution (World Bank and IMF,) America has been assessed a premium proportional to its GDP. The truth is that the rest of the world is getting wealthier at a faster pace than America. This means America's proportion should diminish with the passage of time.

In fact, that's something the rest of the world and the American Administration have suggested. But guess what happened, it was the Congress that refused to go along. This is because when you pay less, the weight of your voice diminishes proportionately. Thus, people like the editors of the Tribune should be told that America cannot have it both ways. If you want a bigger voice, you have to pay for it. If you want to pay less, you must accept having a lesser sway in world affairs.