The blue flag blues

It's been a tough time for the United Nations. The UN has never been very popular among American conservatives but sustained attacks on the organization has usually been limited to loose cannons like the infamous former Sen. Jesse Helms. But ever since the Iraq invasion, the right has turned up the heat massively on the UN.

Fundamentally, the right is furious that the UN didn't bend to the Bush administration's will on Iraq. The Security Council refused to explicitly approve the excursion. Secretary-general Kofi Annan condemned the aggression as illegal. Even then, UN inspectors found no evidence of a serious weapons of mass destruction program in Saddam's Iraq. The Bush administration needed the WMD argument as its fundamental justification to the American people, so it portrayed UN inspectors as either liars or incompetent. After two years of American control, surprise surprise, no serious WMDs have been found. They shamelessly smeared people like Hans Blix and Marine veteran Scott Ritter because they said what the Bush administration didn't want to hear. Of course, those people who turned out to be absolutely right. No apology has been offered to Blix and Ritter.

But this is how the administration and its supporters deal with opposition: smears, innuendo. Whatever they think they can get away with. They did it to Blix. They did it to Ritter. They did it to John Kerry (who they might've canonized as a 'war hero' if he'd not dared speak out). So it's no surprise that the UN, never a darling of conservatives anyway, would find itself in the line of fire.

The main scandal that's dogged the UN is apparently widespread corruption in the oil-for-food program that the UN was mandated to operate for Saddam's Iraq. (Corruption and oil together? Shocking!)

The oil-for-food [OFF] program was the first and only time the UN was given the responsibility of essentially managing an economy.

In early 2004, an Iraqi newspaper published a list of about 270 people including UN officials, politicians and companies it alleged may have profited from the illicit sale of Iraqi oil during the OFF programme.

Neo-conservatives seized on this to attack the UN yet again, though none have noted that billions of dollars are unaccounted for in the Iraq reconstruction fund set up to replace the OFF programme - which was under the stewardship of the US-led coalition in Iraq.

An independent investigation concluded that the UN had inadequate internal controls on the OFF program and conducted an 'inadequate' inquiry into the problems but cleared Annan of unethical conduct. It's worth wondering why no conservatives have called for even an inquiry into how Iraq reconstruction has been spent, misspent or not spent.

Annan hit back, alleging that the US and Britain turned a blind eye to oil smuggling (the heart of the oil-for-for scandal).

"The bulk of the money that Saddam [Hussein] made came out of smuggling outside the oil-for-food programme, and it was on the American and British watch," Annan said. "Possibly they were the ones who knew exactly what was going on, and that the countries themselves decided to close their eyes to smuggling to Turkey and Jordan because they were allies."

The US and British governments denied Annan's charge.

Though former UN weapons inspector claims that the oil-for-food scandal is a 'cynical smokescreen.' (Read his essay as it deserves better than a curt summary)

There was also an atrocious sex scandal in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Troops from South Africa, Uruguay, Pakistan, Morocco and Nepal serving under the UN flag in the DRC were implicated in systematic sexual abuse of minors. There have been allegations against troops in peacekeeping missions in other countries. Annan has denounced the abusers and the UN is going to re-structure its rules for peacekeeping operations to make soldiers and their governments more accountable.

This is absolutely essential. Just as Abu Ghraib seriously damaged international perception of 'American values,' the peacekeeper sex scandal has just as much potential to destroy international confidence in the UN's ideals. Outside the United States, the UN generally has a good and well-deserved reputation for its work in activities like feeding the hungry, housing refugees and mediating in conflicts. If not properly dealt with, the peacekeeper sex scandal may overshadow the many good things the UN does. Feeding the hungry isn't quite so honorable if you're demanding sex in exchange.

There are, of course, legitimate criticisms of the UN and its structure. These have been made by human rights groups for a long time. These criticisms were long ignored by conservatives, who've never held much fondness for the human rights crowd. But now that such criticisms happen to coincide with the right wing agenda of UN demonization, conservatives suddenly pretend to care about human rights... except they oppose the very solutions that might address human rights abuses.

The UN Human Rights Commission has long been a joke. It has 53 members. They are chosen by geography not merit. This year's commission includes such sterling judges of human rights as Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and, arguably the most repressive state in the world, Saudi Arabia. In recent years, the commission has included countries such as China, Sudan, Algeria, Libya and Syria. With so many human rights abusers on the commission, it's no surprise that the align to protect each other. Sudan was on the commission last year as it was committing genocide in its eastern province of Darfur. The commission investigated and concluded... you guessed it... that Sudan was not committing genocide in Darfur. The considered opinion of nearly every human rights group begged to differ. Maybe that's because Human Rights Watch doesn't have envoys of genocidal regimes on its board.

Recognizing this absurdity, Secretary-General Annan wisely proposed scrapping the existing commission and replacing it with a smaller body that was more accountable and more representative. Some suggested that anyone on the new council must be willing to allow UN human rights officials into their own countries instantly at any time.

"The main intergovernmental body concerned with human rights should have a status, authority and capability," Annan said.

This quote gets to the crux of the hypocrisy. Right wing critics yammer on about the UN's ineffectiveness but refuse to give it or any other international body the authority to act... under the fear of [insert menacing music] ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

You can not simultaneously criticize the UN for being ineffective and refuse it the very authority it needs to be effective.

Conservatives point to the 'UN's incompetence' during the Rwandan genocide. In fact, the UN peacekeeping mission on the ground wanted to act. In fact, it was the US and other major powers that actively obstructed effective UN action... even though it would've involved non-American troops.

To its credit, the Bush administration has been the only major government to speak out voiciferously against the genocide in Darfur. Yet for months, they obstructed efforts to bring those committing that genocide before the International Criminal Court. Even though the trials wouldn't involve US citizens (the main right wing objection to the court), the administration was so afraid of legitimizing the ICC that it was prepared to oppose efforts to bring genociders to justice. After much delay, the US finally allowed the prosecutions to go ahead after assurances that no US members of any peacekeeping operation in Sudan would be prosecuted. (Why? Does the administration fear that US peacekeepers will commit war crimes in Sudan?)

No one, not even conservative critics of so-called 'UN inefficency,' have called for aggressive military intervention in Darfur.

But this underlines the difficulty faced by international institutions, when they're given a hard time even in implementing the most obvious solutions to the most urgent problems.

Some have called for an end to veto power by the five permanent members of the Security Council. This would certainly make the Council more efficient, but obviously the Big Five don't want that. Even conservative critics of 'UN inefficiency' don't want that... because it would dillute American dominance in the organization.

The reality is that these critics don't want the UN to be more efficient in how it serves humanity. They want it to be more efficient in how it serves the administration in Washington.

Some Americans want the US to withdraw from the United Nations. I do not agree with point of view, but at least these people have the intellectual integrity to make an honest argument.

Those of us who want UN reform because they want the organization's goals to be better implemented need to speak up. The voices of the disingenuous need to be countered.