The UN down the drain

by John Thompson

05/05/03

During the recent war in Iraq it was touching to see the faith that many Canadians still have in the UN. God knows why.

Our Prime Minister himself said that he would not have joined the US-led Coalition without UN approval — not that we waited for UN approval before sending Canadian F-18s off to bomb the Serbs in Kosovo in 1999. A majority of Canadians believe that the UN should take the lead, rather than the US, in restoring Iraq. Then there is the touchingly pathetic belief that Canada’s record as a "peacekeeper" on UN missions somehow gives us significant international prestige.

There was a time back in the 1950s, when Canada had a lot of international prestige — mostly earned because of our performance in WW 2, with a subsequent boost for our contribution to the Korean War. This was also a time when it was hoped that the UN could be a success as a forum for the world’s nations, and could limit disputes among them.

The UN has done some good work, and some of the agencies it has established have done excellent work — the World Health Organization, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, and even UNESCO (after the corruption of the 1970s was cleaned up) all come to mind. The International Monetary Fund and the International Civil Aviation Organization are also examples of UN-sponsored agencies that have gone far in keeping the world tied together with universal standards and common agreements.

Some of the decisions, however, out of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly have been of much lesser worth. The 1973 vote — led by the Arab nations, with a majority vote purchased from developing nations with oil money — that equated Zionism with racism was a clear sign that the Organization’s collective judgment was becoming questionable.

Originally, the United Nations had been a descriptor for the countries that had been active participants in the war against the Axis. As the war continued and victory drew nigh, the organization took on more of a formal nature and there was a regular stampede from previously neutral (or even pro-Axis) nations to sign on. When the UN was formed in 1945, the number of members was 47, about 15 of whom had fought in the Second World War, now there are 192 voting members — many of whom have little regard for the aims and ideals of the majority of the founding members.

A group this large and this, um, ‘diverse’ can make for an interesting organization, but nobody in their right mind should expect it to be an efficient one. In the complex international security environment that has sprung up since the end of the Cold War, the UN has not distinguished itself. From the former Yugoslavia to Somalia to Rwanda, and on to Iraq in 2002, irresolution and infirmity of purpose have characterized the UN HQ, and its only really credible action has been to list a number of terrorist groups and financial organizations that support them, with the expectation that its member states will take action.

But perhaps the nadir of the UN has come with the General Assembly’s 15 nation Committee on Human Rights. Human Rights are an invention of the Western Nations, and are best guaranteed inside real democratic nations that subject themselves to the Rule of Law (which typifies the majority of Western nations who were the core states behind the creation of the UN). They tend to be most disregarded inside totalitarian regimes whose leaders dislike accountability of any kind, and who believe the state exists for their personal benefit — such can be easily found in non-Western nations.

Naturally, in today’s UN, only three members of the Committee on Human Rights may come from Western nations. Worse, in recent years, the remaining twelve membership places have increasingly tended to fall into the hands of member states with appalling human rights records — nations like China (which has more blood on its hands than Nazi Germany); Sudan, where slavery still exists; or Syria with its record of mass executions and similar abuses.

In 2002, the United States was voted off the committee after over 30 years of membership. To add insult to injury, the new chairmanship position went to Libya. In 2003, Libya was replaced by Cuba. As if futility and indecision wasn’t enough, the UN General Assembly risks becoming something out of Orwell’s 1984 where war is peace and freedom is slavery. It’s time to kick some members out, or leave ourselves.

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mackenzieinstitute@bellnet.ca