05 January 2007

UN Unable to Control Its Own

Granted, the UN doesn't have any troops of its own, but it does have the "authority" to send peacekeepers into places of conflict. However, once they get there, they can do as they choose without worry that the UN will punish them. Apparently, the UN is powerless to do so.

So, why again is it that progressives would have the United States bow to the "international community" and always seek "UN approval" for any military (or other - economic) action? If UN peacekeepers can commit sexual assaults against those they are sent to protect, why in the world would anyone in the world take anything the UN does with any gravity?

If the UN's own can commit sex crimes, what consequence are the crimes of sovereign nations (however despotic)?

If the UN's designated persons can facilitate gross malfeasance under the cover of "oil-for-food", what matter is it for local officials or corrupt governments to copy the practice?

If the UN cannot control those under their charge, why should sovereign governments be held accountable for groups that just happen to be within their borders, or which form minority parts of their governments? Or for that matter, majority parts (like the PA)?

I could go on, but my point is that this international institution which was set up to mediate international disputes is trumped by the nature of the majority of countries which make up the union. Most governments in this world do not share the conviction that the UN was created (according to the Charter of the United Nations):
- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to 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, and
- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

The UN is really just a stage to play-act at world consensus without the need to enforce it, without a hint at attempts (in reality) to move toward the vision statement of the UN. The inability of the UN to control even those sent in peace, under its auspices, is a screaming critique of the union's uselessness.

No comments: