Ah, the United Nations—can’t live with it, can’t live without it!
But I think it may be time for the U.S., having tried to live with a corrupt, hypocritical, impotent monument to how disastrous a one-world government would be—while supplying the lion’s share of its funding— to try living without it.
The U.N. Human Rights Council has issued a 23-page report praising the Gaddafi regime’s human-rights record.
Let me repeat that.
Maybe the report won’t be approved: it doesn’t matter. This is an organization that will not muster international force to stop brutal massacres; it is an organization that specializes in toothless sanctions when action is desperately needed. In the Iraq debacle, it issued resolutions that it refused to enforce when violated, while noting that individual countries were free to act themselves. When the U.S. did act, prudently or not, the U.N. condemned it, not in small part because U.N. officials, Russia and France were making copious back-door profits dealing with Saddam Hussein.
The United Nations is such a fraud, so dishonest, so corrupt, so timid, so inept, that the United States degrades itself by belonging to it. Does the world need a world organization? Absolutely, but nobody needs this cynical disgrace for one. An organization that thinks a government in the process of mowing down its own people in the streets is, or ever was, a model of human rights protection is a sick joke. Here is an excellent candidate for budget cutting: ending support for an expensive international fiasco. It should go even before NPR and PBS.
We should have no illusions about the unsavory regimes and individuals foreign policy sometimes requires a country to tolerate. Organizations, however, can be replaced, and lousy organizations should be replaced. The most efficient way to replace this one is to for the U.S. to announce it will be giving its U.N, support to the Smithsonian primate house until a more suitable recipient appears.