NYC Letter: UN Headline Primer

First these:

UN CONDEMNS ISRAEL'S EXTRA-JUDICIAL ASSASSINATIONS
UNITED NATIONS August 23, 2003 (UN)

UN CONDEMNS U.S. CUBA EMBARGO
HAVANA October 28, 2004 (CBS)

UN CONDEMNS UK CANNABIS LAWS
LONDON March 13, 2005 (Observer)

UN CONDEMNS ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
April 14, 2005 (BBC)

UN CONDEMNS REPORTED US ABUSE IN AFGHANISTAN
KABUL May 22, 2005 (Reuters)

And then these:

UN CHIDES IRAN OVER HUMAN RIGHTS
UNITED NATIONS December 21, 2004 (BBC)

U.N. 'OUTRAGED' BY [UN] SEX ABUSE
January 9, 2005 (CNN)

UN TACKLES SEX ABUSE BY [UN] TROOPS
NEW YORK June 25, 2005 (CSM)

UN CRITICISES ZIMBABWE SLUM BLITZ
July 1, 2005 (BBC)

UN SHARP CRITICISM OF ZIMBABWE BULLDOZING
UNITED NATIONS July 25, 2005 (Reuters)

Now we admit these are selected headlines and that different editors will consult their thesauruses or Ouija boards for different ways to describe an action. But this selection is not untypical of how the UN is spun by others or spins itself.

What the UN sees fit to condemn and that which it can only bring itself to politely tongue-cluck has little to do with the gravity of an offense and everything to do with a general antipathy to the developed West, a specific antipathy to the United States, and a great delicacy about criticizing itself and nations it holds to a low standard, the lowest standard, or no standard at all, these constituting the greater UN huddle of nations.

Not that there is a practical difference between the UN condemning something and it being really really disappointed about something. There is no more punch in a UN condemnation than in a UN chiding, no more bite to the UN criticizing than the UN condemning.

If the UN once had ideals that informed its business, well, we are hard pressed to discover them today. UN membership is supposed to be circumscribed by the UN Charter, which in part reads:

Preamble: [We the peoples of the United Nations] ... reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...

The People's Republic of China is a member with a permanent seat on the UNSC (10.25.71). Egypt is a member (10.24.45). Cuba is a member (10.24.45). Sudan is a member (11.12.56). Saudi Arabia is a member (10.24.45).

I.ii: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Yet Iran and Syria are members (both 10.24.45). The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a member (09.17.91), which puts the bar as low as it'll go.

II.vi: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Again, Iran and Democratic People's Republic of Korea are members. Saddam's Iraq was a member (12.21.45).

IX.lxxiv: Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.

Yet France is a member with a permanent seat on the UNSC (10.24.45).

We have come round to the opinion that the UN is like a France writ large: Openly perfidous, self-exculpating, unabashedly duplicious, overweening, with a misplaced sense of importance based on somebody else's ability to pay or execute. And it keeps bad company.

Why does America remain...oh, we imagine to ensure American interests get a hearing. No, no. We really don't know at all.

Posted by Damian at August 11, 2005 01:45 AM