The United Nations is a Mess - Zimbabwe
The UN is a mess. It provides a place for dictators to strut and send their children so they can play in a world-class city while having diplomatic immunity. But it does not do what it is intended to do - to provide a place for countries to come together to solve problems that affect everyone.
So should we send Barbara Boxer to New York City to be nice to everyone? Or should we send someone who will ask questions and push to clean it up? Like John Bolton.
Look at what is happening right now -
- Zimbabwe was elected to the UN Human Rights Commission. Elected. This is happening now - April, 2005. More about Zimbabwe below.
- The UN supervised the Iraq Oil-for-Food program and turned it into a massive illegal kick-back scheme for Russia and France. And huge illegal kick backs to the UN's favored people - Kofi Annan's son. And, incredibly, the UN allowed Saddam Hussein to subvert the program and take food out of the mouths of his people and use the money for his 30 "palaces."
- UN peacekeepers instead of protecting the people they were sent to protect, are raping and killing them. In the Congo the Belgians have been caught doing terrible things. (I need to look up a source for this.)
- Even when the UN admits that its "peacekeepers" are harrassing, raping and killing people, it won't do anything. The people sitting in their palace in New York City sit and enjoy themselves, but do nothing. See "Henry Dowa in Kosovo" below.
Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission - Elected
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was dismayed:
"The Government of Zimbabwe has consistently disregarded the rights of its people, repressed political dissent and quashed any and all opposition. Far from earning a role as a protector of human rights, their membership renders the Commission illegitimate and irrelevant. A real and credible UN Human Rights Commission would be condemning the current regime and its activities. I deplore their selection as a Commission member, and hope that this outrageous appointment will help inspire UN members to enact extensive and meaningful reform of the Commission."
Roger Bates covers the story at Tech Central Station
For the UN to have voted Zimbabwe onto the UN Commission for Human Rights it had to ignore the following:
- the 20,000 members of the opposition that Mugabe ordered killed in the 1980s
- the destruction of half of the economy in the past five years to maintain power; the regular physical abuse encountered by any opposition to his regime (and that includes just saying nasty things about the leader)
- • the lack of free media
- food allocation used as a political weapon
- helping wage a war in the Congo so that Mugabe and his cronies make millions from conflict diamonds
- the neglect of the entire health system so that life expectancy has dropped from 55 to 33 years in the past decade.
This shows how arrogant the collective UN is. That the countries vote to place another human right abuser to the Human Rights Commission. Other recent members - Libya and Sudan.
Henry Dowa in Kosovo
Even when the UN admits that its "peacekeepers" are harrassing, raping and killing people, it won't do anything. Roger Bate goes into one example:
In 2001 a Zimbabwean policeman with a reputation as a serial torturer was seconded to the UN police force in Kosovo. Not minding whose human rights he abused, Henry Dowa carried right on torturing and was eventually asked to leave in 2003. He is now back in Harare committing more offences against the powerless populace of Zimbabwe's capital. The human rights group, REDRESS, recently published a report on Dowa -- it makes grisly reading. According to the report, the UN acknowledged the gravity of the allegations made against Dowa. But here's the kicker:
"However, after very careful consideration and in consultation with UN Headquarters, we have with regret concluded that UN…cannot pursue criminal prosecution of the officer in Kosovo…[as the UN] has a very limited number of international judges and prosecutors to whom the case would have to be referred."
The UN sent a known criminal to "protect the people of Kosovo." And now it won't prosecute Dowa for what he did while wearing a UN uniform.
It's broken. Send John Bolton to so something.
posted by Ron at 8:01 AM
3 Comments:
After WMD the dog and pony show we sent to the UN courtesy of the WH, and our sneering contempt for the opinion of other nations ... you have to be utterly out of your mind-or simply clueless beyond hope-to even consider the idea that Bolton or anyone else from the US holds a shred of credibility there. Ron what the hell are you smoking, and where can I get some?
Dark Syde,
One reason the US has considerable credibility at the UN is that it depends on us more than any other country for its finances.
Do you recommend we lower our generous funding since - in your opinion - the US has not a shred of credibility? That would make sense.
Did you notice in the content I posted that the United Nations has serious problems? Kofi has had to move fast to cover the appearance that he was involved in the multi-billion-dollar oil-for-food scandal.
BTW, when I first followed the link to your Blogger profile I saw all zeros on activity. I thought I was looking at an empty blog. Looking again I see you have moved.
Ron I don't give a hoot who we send to the UN. In fact, Bolton's alleged idiosyncrasies might be less damaging their than anywhere else. In the UN any American rep is going to be treated as a leper for some time regardless of how nice or how disgruntled they may be.
My amusement derives from the attitude of some that we should send someone to the UN that's going to 'set them straight'. Set them straight about what exactly?
Human rights? As long as we're kidnapping men and women from foreign nations and whisking them off to third world shit holes like Syria or Uzbekistan, to be tortured, boiled alive in some cases, I doubt we'll get any traction with that objection.
Set them straight on covering for thugs? Newsflash: we've covered for plenty of thugs, we're still doing it. Set them straight about corruption? We're up to our asses in it in Iraq and elsewhere, and it doesn't matter if you see it that way or not, most nations in the UN do see it that way.
Set them straight about lying or screw-ups? After the WMD smoke and mirrors we ran through there a couple of years ago they'll probably get quite a laugh out of any self righteous attitude like that.
We don't have a leg to stand on in criticizing the UN about anything and they know we don't have a leg to stand on. And no matter how much one might bitch and whine about it, our credibility is shot to hell and now they give even less of a rat's ass about what you or I think about them.
If we sent a smooth talking, silver tongued schoomzer to the UN he might, MIGHT, be able to get some traction down the road. Because right now we are the most detested, despised nation on earth. Our allies regularly conduct polls in which we are ranked as more dangerous than Al Qaeda. Mostly all because of Iraq. Our staunchest Ally, the UK is having an election in which the primary weapon of opponents to the Labour Party is the mere picture of Bush and Blair talking together.
The only disturbing issue surrounding Bolton is that he is merely the latest reminder of something both parties do all too often, and something Bush has elevated to a new level: promoting and rewarding cronies and political carpet baggers who were dead wrong. If a CEO promoted people who screwed up and cost the company billions with their screw-ups, and marginalized or fired those who made the correct call, time after time, he wouldn't last long. Business don't have the time, motivation, or inclination to humor silly ideologies that don't pay off. Sadly, our politicians do.
If we sent a smooth talking, silver-tongued schmoozing diplomat to the UN, I don't know if it would make any difference. I've traveled outside of the US. Right now, we're more hated and despised by our allies in Europe and Asia more than Al Qaeda. You can imagine how the other nations feel about us.
Post a Comment
<< Home