Saturday, July 12, 2008

The amorality of the UN

The world’s leading democracies have condemned the world’s more dubious regimes for vetoing a draft UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe's leaders. The UK and the US are at the forefront of the expressions of incredulity, for the measures would have meant an arms embargo and a travel ban for Robert Mugabe and 13 of his key allies. The resolution had the support of nine council members, the minimum required to pass in the 15-member council. But the veto of any of the five permanent members is enough to defeat a resolution.

In favour of sanctions were:
Burkina Faso
Costa Rica
United States

Against sanctions were:
South Africa


The US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Russia's veto raised ‘questions about its reliability as a G8 partner’. Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Russia used its veto despite a promise by President Dmitry Medvedev to support the resolution when it was discussed at this week's summit of the G8 group of industrialised nations.

The opposition party, the MDC, says 113 of its supporters have been killed throughout the recent rigged election, some 5,000 are missing and more than 200,000 have been forced from their homes since March.

If violence, murder, terrorism, fraud, intimidation and God knows what else are deemed insufficient reasons for UN intervention, one can only conclude that the UN is amoral and offensive to the principles of democracy and the maintenance of human rights. What does Russia understand of democracy? Why would China seek to uphold free and fair elections? What does Libya advocate of human rights?

As The Spectator has observed, the UN is not the Holy See, but the world's impotence and inaction over Zimbabwe lends weight to the argument that, if there is to be a modicum of morality in world affairs, it is time to abandon this façade of enlightened world government, and establish the League of Democracies.

And then the UK could veto the membership of the EU.


Anonymous mckenzie said...

Gosh, the world is in a mess. I think we are heading for a major war. I could write an essay about greed and exploitation, but I tried that once and the response was slightly humiliating.

12 July 2008 at 10:56  
Anonymous Stonemason said...

It's amazing, memories are so short, so selective, so amoral.

Chinese people are little more than ill-treated serfs, and we do business with them.

Russians, have you forgotten the cold war, or the recent thefts from British companies.

Libya, Lockerby, I wonder who was the guilty party.

South Africa, has the necklace, a tyre soaked in petrol, placed round a person's neck, and set on fire in order to burn the person to death.

And our government think these countries can be trusted, the morality of an alley cat comes to mind.

12 July 2008 at 11:11  
Blogger Simon Harley said...

I think your Grace needs to rename the "League of Democracies" to something reflecting more its anglophone nature. I wonder if South Africa attempted in some manner to coerce fellow African nation Burkina Faso to oppose the sanctions in some sort of twisted solidarity with President Mugabe's regime.

It is a shame that as Lambeth approaches more isn't being done by the Church to bring about a free society in Zimbabwe.

12 July 2008 at 18:04  
Anonymous some english bloke said...

Why do we still bother with the United Nations ?
Fair play to Burkina Faso, someone pass the aid bucket.

Where now the 'Free South Africa' marchers of yesteryear, shame on you and all your fellow travellers.

12 July 2008 at 21:16  
Anonymous wrinkled weasel said...

"League of Democracies"? Don't go there. Would this "League" include America? - the country that gave you Iraq and Abu Graib? followed closely by its lapdog Great Britain? Is this the "democracy" that promised a referendum on the EU, only to break its promise? Do me a favour.

14 July 2008 at 12:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older