February 18, 2003

FEAR AND SELF-LOATHING IN MANHATTAN:

Reuniting the Security Council (NY Times, 2/18/03)
The most hawkish figures in the Bush administration never wanted to bring the Iraq issue before the United Nations. With last Friday's show of resistance in the Security Council to early military action against Baghdad, it's easy to imagine some of them saying "I told you so," and urging President Bush to bypass the Council and prepare for an invasion joined only by Britain and a narrow coalition of smaller nations. That would be a damaging mistake.

Walking away from the U.N. and important European allies over this issue is not in America's long-term interests.


Israel's second-class status at the UN (Anne Bayefsky, February 18, 2003, National Post)
Last week Israel's second-class status at the UN was again demonstrated by the defeat of the Israeli candidate for the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Yehudit Karp is the committee's current rapporteur. In the past, she had been chosen by fellow members as vice-chair and was a seasoned, well-respected committee member.

Her defeat follows the defeat of the Israeli candidate for the election to the UN Human Rights Committee in September 2002; the defeat of the Israeli candidate and sitting member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in August 2002; and the defeat of the Israeli candidate for election to the UN Racial Discrimination Committee in January 2002. In fact, the only remaining elected Israeli on a UN body anywhere is Mayer Gabay, vice-chair of the UN Administrative Tribunal -- whose term ends in December of this year and who is not permitted by general rules concerning time limits to stand for re-election.

By contrast, Egypt has members on all six of the UN human rights treaty bodies. In fact, the Egyptian candidate for the Committee on the Rights of the Child was elected with the highest number of votes by the 191 parties to the Child Convention. This is despite the fact that the leading child rights international NGO (based in Geneva) put out an advisory to countries before the vote. It said: "NGOs feel that she is not very knowledgeable nor reliable on the issues ... due to her strong affiliation and history with the Egyptian government." Translation: When countries of interest to Egypt are considered by the committee, an Egyptian government official sits close to the "independent" Egyptian member just to make sure they get it right. [...]

Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe pass judgment on human rights at the UN Commission on Human Rights. China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates specialize in the rights of women at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Iran is one of five members on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan scrutinize the implementation of labour standards on the Governing Council of the International Labour Organization.

In the meantime, representatives and experts from the democratic and Jewish state of Israel are disqualified, blackballed, or left standing in the halls of UN bodies everywhere.


Here's a simple reform the UN should undergo before we even consider working through it: No non-democracies shall be members. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 18, 2003 8:21 AM
Comments

Given the state of that illustrious org., I think it should be taken as a badge of honor.



Not that it will, mind you. Still....

Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 18, 2003 10:10 AM

I never thought I would come to this: I think a "reformation" is in order, and failing that, we should leave the U.N. It has become distorted in process and obstructionist to the achievment of a reasonable world order. "Out damn spot."

Posted by: Genecis at February 18, 2003 3:28 PM

While superficially appealing, the notion of an all-democratic superorganization is undefinable.



The reason Maurice Hankey turned down the chance to be first secretary-general of the League of Nations was that he observed, correctly, that it would be impossible to define "aggression." Same with democracy. Is Thailand one? If not, why not?

Posted by: Harry at February 19, 2003 1:39 PM
« THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM IN NAFTA: | Main | FIG LEAFERY: »