The United Nations: What’s The Point?

Jacques Chirac and Kofi AnnanAnnan: U.N. Needs New Human Rights Body, declares the latest headline from the Associated Press this morning.

I’m sure we’d all agree that’s some refreshing news. With all the recent scandals surrounding this dubious institution, from the U.N.’s oil-for-food program scandal and the documented sex abuses by their “peacekeepers” to the total lack of leadership and allegations of other wrongdoings, it’s long overdue.

The AP reports: “The United Nations needs a new, permanent human rights body if it is to prevent appalling suffering around the world, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday.”

We have reached a point at which the commission’s declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole and where piecemeal reforms will not be enough,” Annan told delegates. “The commission’s ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work.”

Reached a point? Really. Despite the years of being criticized for inaction on such matters. It appears the only “point” Kofi recognizes is one of possibly losing his job as the U.N. slips into total irrelevance, thanks largely to his mismanagement and the misconduct of certain of its members.

The AP continues: “As part of a package of reforms unveiled last month, the secretary-general proposed a human rights council to replace the present commission.”

Well, well. What a great idea. After all, since being chaired by Muammar Qadhafi, Libya’s notorius dictator, one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights and a supporter of international terrorism, the U.N.’s Commission on Human Rights has lacked total credibility, to say the least. And let’s not forget the long-running accusations of anti-semitism and lack of any enforcement.

“The new human rights council must be a society of the committed. It must be more accountable and more representative,” Annan said. “Ultimately it would produce more effective assistance and protections, and that is the yardstick by which we should be measured.”

Sounds like he’s pulling a page from the George W. Bush handbook, who talked about a “coalition of the willing” when he tried to get support from the U.N. to enforce it’s own resolutions - which it failed to do. More accountability is most definitely required.

Last year, the commission voted 50-1, with 2 abstentions, to express concern about the situation in Darfur, but stopped short of formal condemnation of Sudan. Even formal censure by the commission involves no penalties but draws attention to a country’s record.

No penalities? Maybe that’s what Saddam realized, and why he didn’t care about respecting the U.N.’s requests for inspections or otherwise. In order to be taken seriously, force is sometimes required. Warnings without consequences are empty. Tragically, the only consequences now are that lives are being lost.

As today’s Wall Street Journal observes, “The greatest irony here is that for more than a year the U.S. had been virtually alone in trying to get the Security Council to take tougher action on Darfur.” Among the problems being certain members have economic conflicts of interest, including our good friends and “allies” in France.

The United Nations has called the situation in Darfur — where two rebel groups made up of black tribesmen have been fighting against the government for two years, prompting a rampage by pro-government Arab militiamen accused of atrocities against civilians — as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

An estimated 180,000 people have died in the upheaval and about 2 million others have been displaced since the conflict began in February 2003.

Once again, given the widespread corruption within the U.N. and the absent leadership, it appears hopeless that some real solutions will offered any time soon. But at least we know Kofi has finally reached “a point” to talk about action. In the case of Darfur, it means after the loss of a couple hundred thousand lives. But, hey, who’s counting?

4 Responses to “The United Nations: What’s The Point?”

  1. Myopic Zeal :: Are You as Stupid as Kofi Annan and the Media Think You Are? :: April :: 2005 Says:

    [...] m is probably laughing so hard he’s rolling on the floor right along with Dan Rather. California Conservative comments: The AP continues: “As part of a package of reforms unveiled las [...]

  2. California Conservative » Not So Fast, Kofi… Says:

    [...] Saddam Hussein’s regime after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. RELATED: The United Nations: What’s The Point? Posted @ 2:56 pm | Permalink | No Responses & [...]

  3. California Conservative » Too Much Kofi: U.N. Boss Refuses To Resign Says:

    [...] RELATED: Kofi Annan: Can’t Recall Any Wrongdoing Not So Fast, Kofi… The United Nations: What’s The Point? Posted @ 11:03 am | Permalink | No Responses &raqu [...]

  4. California Conservative » Kofi? No, Thanks. I’m Trying to Cut Down Says:

    [...] RELATED: Too Much Kofi: U.N. Boss Refuses To Resign Kofi Annan: Can’t Recall Any Wrongdoing Not So Fast, Kofi… The United Nations: What’s The Point? [...]

Leave a Reply