Don Sensing continues to list the foolishness (to be overly nice about it) perpetrated by the United Nations, including

  • Allowing Syria to have a significant role in the setting of the Israel/Hezbollah terms.

  • Allowing those doing the killing in Darfur to decide if they want UN oversight.
  • Allowing North Korea to starve more of its people while Annan fiddled.

And yet, there are those who still believe that the UN is simply in need of fixing, rather than scaling it way back or doing away with the idea. How, exactly, has the UN helped those in Rwanda, Darfur, N. Korea or the many other places where the are or aren’t?

Has the UN done good? Yes, you can name places and even programs where they’ve made things better. But more often than not, their monumental failures overshadow those successes. Typically, they prevent action and allow murderers to buy time to ply their craft while this august body deliberates, studies and flies diplomats around the world, culminating in a harshly worded piece of paper.

And Chavez quakes in his boots. Or not.

The main problem I see with the UN is that it has the liberal tendency to avoid passing value judgements, and instead assigns moral equivalence in even the least gray areas. Thus, it lacks clarity, instead painting everything with an overly broad brush, and allowing those who do understand the nature of evil–because they’re practicing it–to continue on, playing the UN for patsies.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

    Filed under: United Nations

    Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!