The UN is a joke

The UN is a joke. Read the article below and see why.

Read the full article here
James Allan: Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe: are you laughing yet? When outlaws run UN committees, global community is a dubious concept: May 22, 2007

Read below for the summary

LISTEN carefully and you will hear regular appeals to "the international community" or to "the UN" or to "what the rest of the world thinks".

Start with the UN itself. The old UN Commission on Human Rights was dismantled in June last year for being ineffective, biased, ridiculous. In its place we have the UN Human Rights Council, with 47 member countries. And in its short lifespan it has already made nine resolutions criticising human rights abuses.

Sounds good, right? Well, not one of those resolutions was critical of Sudan (over Darfur), or Zimbabwe, or China, or anywhere, save Israel. Yes, Israel is the only country this new body has criticised (on nine separate occasions, no less) for rights abuses. Gee, nothing to be sceptical about in that.

How about the UN Commission on the Status of Women? At its 2007 annual conference, when surveying the plight of women around the entire world, what countries did it single out? Saudi Arabia, maybe, where women aren't allowed to drive and are liable to be stoned to death? Or big chunks of Africa? Or Afghanistan? Nope. Apparently the only country that warranted a resolution for violating women's rights was, wait for it, Israel.

Or how about this? The UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which is charged with economic development and the environment, just elected as its chairman Zimbabwe. Yes, Zimbabwe, which has annual inflation of more than 2200% and whose economy is contracting by more than 5% a year.

Or what about the UN's Disarmament Commission? Iran was just elected to serve as vice-chairman, with Syria as rapporteur. Even George Orwell couldn't satirize that!

Oh, the countries on that above-mentioned UN Human Rights Council include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Angola, Azerbaijan and others whose advice on human rights might not strike you as terribly persuasive, which is no doubt why those people who don't like the outcomes of democratic politics tend to phrase their appeals in vague, amorphous terms ("the international community") rather than in specifics ("here's what Robert Mugabe and the Baath party of Syria think about the proper level of treatment for women and minorities").

Need more examples of "interesting" countries on various agencies and bodies? Here are just a few. Committee on Information: China and Kazakhstan. World Food Program executive board: Sudan and Zimbabwe (for some reason North Korea missed out, despite its famine). International Labour Organisation Governing Body (the one lots of union officials like to appeal to): Saudi Arabia (that bastion of generous treatment to non-citizen workers).

Now, I know that some readers - those who have more than a passing acquaintance with the whole international law superstructure and who, one supposes, get the odd invitation to conferences across the world or are asked to serve in some paid role here or there - like to say that these examples are all on the political side of the UN. Forget all that, they'll say (well, at least if you get a few drinks into them). The real work, they assure you, takes place in the various treaty bodies, the groups of "experts" who report on the many human rights treaties in existence.

So, any room for scepticism there? I think that depends on whether you're a democrat at heart or you're more inclined towards aristocratic, philosopher-king, judicial-activism type of government.

James Allan is a professor of law at the University of Queensland.