When I was in high school, I was active in the Model United Nations. The organization encourages teenagers to explore and debate international issues in gatherings that resemble U.N. bodies like the General Assembly and Security Council. My school even participated in national competitions in New York and Chicago, and I’ve been interested in global affairs ever since.
As a result, I developed a keen admiration of the United Nations and what it could achieve. However, I also discovered its flaws. The U.N. generally performs well in providing humanitarian assistance, but not in conducting peacekeeping operations. The principle of national sovereignty virtually impedes the United Nations, rightly or wrongly, from doing anything substantial. International law is essentially useless — all countries and organizations cite it when it suits their purposes, and they ignore it when it does not.
But there is one facet of the United Nations that is both bizarre and maddening: The U.N. Human Rights Council. Its predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, was chaired at one point by Libya, whose record on that very issue is deplorable, and its membership included Sudan, who is committing genocide in Darfur. The HRC seems to be heading in a similar direction, particularly with regards to any subject that involves Israel. The HRC is plainly biased. (See the above YouTube clip for a speech delivered in March that was critical of the HRC on issues including its anti-Israel bias and its silence on Darfur. That committee deemed it “inadmissible.”)
I abhor the fact that the United Nations is biased against Israel. The U.N. should address alleged human-rights abuses on both sides. But the United Nation’s bias on a particular issue does not mean that the entire organization is flawed, as many conservatives claim. (The most zealous opponents of the United Nations claim that it is a pretext to a one-world government, but the organization is much too inefficient, ineffective and bureaucratic to manage such a task.) The entire U.S. federal government is not proved to be inept merely because one department, FEMA, has been completely ineffectual. The same holds true for the United Nations.
The United Nations is merely the sum of its member countries – nothing more, nothing less. The General Assembly of the United Nations, where each country has one vote, is meant to be a reflection of world opinion — nothing more, nothing less. (The U.N. Security Council is another, and complex, issue.) For all a reflection of world opinion to be accurate, all countries must be present — the good, the bad, and Iran. People who criticize the United Nations need to remember that the U.N. itself is not at fault; it is the countries that comprise the U.N. themselves. The U.N. can only operate under the rules of operation it is given by its members.
The United Nations’ bias against Israel merely reflects that a sizable majority of countries — their governments, not necessarily their people — are biased against Israel. I’m not sure how to change this, but I have a start: reach a peace agreement with Syria, give more assistance to the Palestinians to help them build a viable state, and move the separation barrier to the Green Line so it protects against terrorism but does not impede the Palestinians’ daily lives.
The Palestinians (see here and here), along with Iran, Syria and Hizbollah, are also to blame for much of the conflict, but Israel has the resources and ability to take the moral high ground. This would help to endear them to the international community.
Elsewhere: Read this, and watch this. Afterwards, watch these examples of speeches that allowed in the HRC. President Bush finally does something right as well. Earlier: Yes, NGOs Sometimes Have Agendas. Related: Mr. Scott Goes to Washington.
