Hell Has No Fury Like The UN Scorned

I was fortunate to catch highlights of the political circus that was this year’s opening of the United Nations. With all the talk about Green Imams and Capitalist Devils from the podium of the General Assembly, one could be forgiven for thinking it was a new TV show. Something along the lines of the West Wing meets Harry Potter dubbed into English on the cheap. In the middle it even had ‘and now a few words from our sponsors’ with Chavez flogging Noam Chomsky’s unreadable books.

Besides for the laughs, this UN spectacle had very little else to offer. And that’s really the point. We don’t need the UN for comic relief. We have professional comedians for that who’s combined annual fees are nowhere near the size of the UN budget. So it’s not surprising that leading American academics, political commentators and senators are starting to call not for reform but a total overhaul.

But perhaps the best critique is Mark Steyn in his column this week in the Chicago Sun-Times (UN shows why its incapable of reform). Bitingly (as always) he set out why this organisation has finally passed its sell by date. I concur with almost everything he says except his choice for Kofi Annan’s replacement. I think John Steward for the daily show would be a far more likable secretary general then the 12th Imam. But I am open to other suggestions.

Comments

[Dave]

Yeah, the UN is a toothless tiger. It's days are numbered. Look at the humanitarian crisis in Darfur - is anything being done there? The Security Council is a joke, nothing ever gets agreed upon. The UN would drag its feet if ever Iran developed nuclear capacity - nothing would be done. Russia, China and France oppose anything Israeli and always will - what a joke

[brett chatz]

I agree, however the UN is needed. Their efforts in the humanitarian dept. largely go unnoticed but they are doing an incredible job. Recall that in the media - Bad News is what sells, the care and devotion that many UN peacekeepers partake in is real. That they are unable to come to agreement regarding Iran, Somalia and other strife-torn regions is not the fault of the UN. It is the failure of the international community to show solidarity where it is needed most. Whatever international initiatives are undertaken with a multilateral 'umbrella' conglomerate of nations - the same problems will arise. The UN has worked well to a large degree.

[mike]

Brett, I don’t agree with you. I think there are systematic problems with the U.N. that result in a need for a total overhaul. The human right commission is the most glaring example. How can it be that some of the worst abusers of human rights in the world sit on this committee? Another example is the disarmament committee where Iran is a member.

The heart of the problem is the equal treatment of dictators and democracies. American and North Korea have and equal vote in the general assembly. Yet it is the democracies who foot most of the bill. I read on the weekend that under Koffi Annan’s watch over a million people died in wars or genocide that the U.U. failed to prevent. It’s a disgrace. A total disgrace. And worst of all he got a Nobel Prize for it.

I could go on and on … I advise you to check out a website call www.unwatch.org . Then we can chat some more.

[Brett]

Hey Mike, of course you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that completely. However, I must insist that the U.N. has a role to fulfil regardless. Yes they have their shortcomings but so does every organisation. They do some good work, perhaps overall some of their significant failures have marred their image but the efffectiveness of the U.N. will only be further undermined by such opposition. We have to give peace a chance and if that isn't a viable option then an alternative must be implemented.

[Trevor]

Article about Kofi Annan in prospect magezine.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7834