Anita Snow of the Associated Press is clearly concerned that Republican presidential candidates are “bashing” the United Nations.
“All that U.N. bashing,” she writes, in an article that’s not labeled as commentary online, “has raised questions about whether a Republican victory could strain the relationship between the United Nations and its host country, the United States.”
Lord, we hope so! The United Nations needs a little straining!
Just wondering: What is Anita Snow’s faith in the United Nations based upon? Its record of achieving peace? Its moral compass, including decades of “bashing” (to use her term) the only democracy in the Mideast? Its financial worthiness and lack of corruption?
Instead of wringing our hands at what Republican presidential candidates are saying about the United Nations, why don’t we just do a little investigative reporting and find out if their concerns are valid?
Does the term “oil for food” ring a bell? Does the Associated Press know how to use “The Google?”
While America is one of its chief patrons, the United Nations is one of the most anti-American bodies in the world. The numbers alone tell you there’s an intrinsic, institutional problem: Of nearly 200 countries in the world, only about 30 are democracies. That tells you, and might even tell the Associated Press, something of value about the United Nations.
Meanwhile, its structure,
frozen in time, is based on the state of the world just after World War II; most everything else in the world has undergone some change since then. And it’s quite likely the most bloated, most ineffective, most scandal-ridden, least-accountable bureaucracy ever devised by man.
As for accomplishing its mission of world peace, the blood of the past 66 years tells another tale.
This is what Ms. Snow reflexively defends, without inspection or question, against those mean Republicans.
As noted by author Max Boot, the United Nations’ own reports admit that “U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda stood by as Hutu slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi. In Bosnia, the U.N. declared safe areas for Muslims but did nothing to secure them, letting the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica. The organization’s meddling was worse than useless: its blue-helmeted troops were used as hostages by the Serbs to deter a military response from the West.”
“Responsibility for the failure to halt the 1994 genocide in Rwanda,” says a U.N. report, “lies with the U.N. system.”
Oops! Was that the United Nations doing some U.N. bashing?
Writer Daniel Tauber summed up the United Nations’ festering problems nicely:
“Genocide in Darfur (300-400,000 killed and 2.5 million displaced), AIDS in Africa (just under 24 million infected with HIV and 1.6 million dead), the Rwandan Genocide (800,000-1,000,000 killed), Communist China (1.3 billion living under a totalitarian regime), the rise of Islamic terrorism, the plight of women in Islamic and Arabic countries, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and threats to wipe Israel off the map.
“The world sure has a lot of problems and these are just a few. None of them, however, measure up to what the U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto termed the ‘single greatest failure’ of the U.N. – the failure to create a Palestinian state.”
That’s one perverted world view.
The Center on Law and Globalization, a partnership between the University of Illinois College of Law and the American Bar Foundation, notes that the U.N. Human Rights Council took three years to issue a verdict on Gadhafi’s Libya in the 1990s.
“It complimented Libya on its treatment of women,” the Center notes, “and expressed polite concern over the murder and torture of oppositionists. Not surprisingly, Libya ignored the Committee’s comments.”
Libya was later made chair of the council.
“The balance of history,” says the Center, “demonstrates that U.N. organs are more likely to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses.”
“Bashing” is the least we should do.