The amorality of the UN
In favour of sanctions were:
Against sanctions were:
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.