Saturday, September 25, 2010

The useless, corrupt un?

Rex has a column on the un. I can't say I disagree. However I think since we do spend a lot of money on the un and sent our soldiers on un missions , a seat on the security council could be useful to help monitor things.


On Thursday, Stephen Harper visited the United Nations to make a plea for Canada having another turn on the UN Security Council. Why? After so many instances of the UN’s impotence, corruption and waste, why does the body still retain any residue of prestige. Is a seat on the Security Council worth the public begging?

The UN is a study in moral relativism: It presents the same countenance to the most despotic regime as it does to a genuine democracy. Its so-called Human Rights Council is a byword for farce. In situations where urgent intervention is required, it is either incapable of acting or deliberately temporizes at crisis moments. Who can forget Rwanda?

It inserts itself into the great questions of the day — the planet’s climate, for instance — and then seeks to monopolize or control the arguments and input into that question. It affects impartiality, but is agenda-driven. The United Nations may have begun as a noble dream, but it has become just another bartering house for international politicians, a quick prestige stop for some, a chance for Third World diplomats to sample the gaudy West.

No comments:

I Support Lord Black