The U.N.: Celebrating 60 Years of Anti-Semitism, Corruption and Incompetence

By Alexander Schwab

To envision the gross ineptitude and unfathomable worthlessness of the United Nations, consider the deluge of bureaucracy and champion of inefficiency that typifies our common conception of government.

Now imagine a government comprised of governments.

Every year, Americans pay around $7 billion for U.N. operations and peacekeeping, and the dividends on our investment are paying off like Enron. But at least Enron’s accounting practices did not accompany a deep-seated hatred of Jews — the U.N.’s does.

Last fall, the world learned for the first time of the Oil-for-Food scandal. Saddam Hussein’s criminal regime found a funding source while UN officials and their cronies lined their pockets. Even Secretary-General Kofi Annan failed to escape unscathed, as his son, Kojo, was found to be at least partially involved. The U.N. has six official languages, but apparently none of them provides an adequate definition of the word nepotism.

Speaking of definitions, the U.N. also has major problems with the meaning of genocide. It seems that when Arab Sudanese torture, rape and murder their black countrymen on the basis of their race, their systematic killing does not constitute genocide. In the U.N. dictionary, genocide can only be practiced by countries not home to French, Russian and Chinese economic interests.

Complaints can be lodged with the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, formerly headed by rogue-nation poster-child Libya. Current members have a more reformist bent — after all, who could conceivably find fault with the human rights records of Cuba and Syria?

More recently, we have discovered that U.N. peacekeeping forces are better at raping refugees than protecting them. But worry not, the United Nations punished those soldiers in a swift and judicious manner — by sending them home.

Then again, perhaps we should cut UN bureaucrats some slack. After all, they are very hard at work drafting resolutions condemning Israel. In fact, 30 percent of all the resolutions passed in the history of the organization have denounced the Jewish state.

Think enough is enough?

Responding to the U.N.’s culture of failure, various member states have pressed for reform. The United States — rightly — has demanded changes ranging from a legitimate human rights organization to an independent auditing board to root out corruption (gee, what a shocking innovation). However, for many nations, these concerns pale in comparison to the true heart of the problem: Brazil lacks a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Brazil — along with Germany, India and Japan — wants a place on the U.N.’s all-important Security Council, where most of the international body’s challenges are decided. As it currently stands, the Council includes five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) that each wield veto power, and another ten elected temporary members that represent various world regions.

These candidacies do not lack for controversy: Italy, despairing of its increasing isolation from the other Western European powers, opposes Germany; Latin American nations jealous of Brazil’s expanding influence are wary of increasing its clout; China distrusts Japan and Pakistan is less than fond of India. But a sizable number of General Assembly nations are warming to this notion of Security Council expansion.

Genocide, famine, epidemics, terrorism, war and oppression threaten the modern world, and this is the best the UN can come up with? It’s even scarier when you realize that many member states are truly earnest in their plea for Security Council reform.

Luckily, American vigilance over the broken institution is rising. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senator George Allen have suggested some sensible alterations to the manner in which the United Nations does business, and Congress passed a bill in June that would significantly cut United States contributions to the bumbling world body unless it swiftly cleans up its act. Both are good starts, but only time will reveal whether they, too, will drown in the sea of U.N. intransigence.

The current state of the United Nations is enough to make one nostalgic for the days of the League of Nations. At least back then the United States was not a member.

Alexander Schwab is a research assistant for the Center for Individual Freedom.