Human Rights: Selecting Foxes to Guard the Henhouse

As a response to the Holocaust, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was formed in 1946.23 The Commission's work produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the General Assembly unanimously adopted in 1948.24 The Declaration's 30 articles delineated such fundamental rights as social and political freedom, equal protection of the law, freedom of speech and assembly and the right to own property. The Declaration also prohibits slavery, torture, discrimination and arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Despite the ideals outlined in the Declaration, in practice the U.N. is an ineffective advocate for human rights. Under the model that the U.N. used, any member country might gain a seat on the Human Rights Commission with equal voting power, regardless of record of violating human rights.25 As The Heritage Foundation's Joseph Loconte noted before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Africa, "It is a regrettable, yet widely recognized fact: Repressive governments seek membership on the Commission to escape scrutiny and censure."26

On the now defunct 53-member Commission of Human Rights (which the General Assembly voted in March 2006 to replace with a new Human Rights Council)27 were an alarming number of countries with poor human rights records such as Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Nepal.28 In 2004,29 Sudan was reelected as a member in good standing despite then-Secretary of State Colin Powell declaring before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Sudanese government had failed to stop genocide in the country's Darfur region.30 Since 1997, the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Sudan because of its government's ties to international terrorism and human rights violations, including slavery, denial of religious freedom and human trafficking.31 "When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization," said President Bush to the General Assembly. "If member countries want the United Nations to be respected - respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect."32

While some of the world's most oppressive regimes were included on the Human Rights Commission, politics resulted in some great defenders of human rights being removed from the Commission. For instance, in 2001, the United States was voted off the Commission for the first time since the Commission's inception. Western countries opposing the U.S. stance on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change as well as developing countries voted together in bloc to protest the U.S.,33 a decision scorned in America.

It is doubtful the Human Rights Council will be any improvement over the Commission. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice decided early on that the U.S. would not seek membership on the body in 2006 because of concerns that its criteria for membership did not do enough to prevent abusive members from gaining a seat.34 The U.S. voted against the new body's creation in March of 2006, as the U.S.'s suggestion that members be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, a higher threshold, was not included in reform efforts.35 Under the adopted Council rules, any U.N. member state may seek a candidacy and be elected with an absolute majority of the U.N. members - 96 votes. As a result, the 47 countries that were elected by the General Assembly in May of 2006 to the Council include some of the same countries with dismal human rights records that were on the Commission: Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Russia and Pakistan.36



Emboldening Executioners

The U.N. has been incapable of preventing some of the most gruesome human rights violations in the 20th century. In one well-publicized failure, at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica by General Ratko Mladic's Bosnian Serb army.37 The U.N. had intervened in the Balkans conflict in 1993 to establish one of five "safe havens." Yet, a thinly-spread force consisting of 350 light-armored Dutch peacekeeping troops did not protect - nor deter - Bosnian Serb forces from overrunning Srebrenica and committing what has been described as the worst massacre in Europe in half a century.38

According to a 1999 U.N. investigative report, the U.N. Security Council failed to authorize an adequate number of peacekeeping troops to defend the safe areas. The 7,600 troops sent to the areas in 1993 were a token number compared to the 34,000 troops recommended by the U.N.'s peacekeeping force commander, Lieutenant-General Philippe Morillon. The report says then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali contended that the threat of air strikes was a sufficient deterrent against any safe area assault.39 The assumption was shown to be incorrect when the Bosnian Serb army ignored the peacekeeping presence and overran Srebrenica in July 1995. Four months later, the Security Council voted to permit 60,000 NATO troops to enforce the November 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement and to relieve the U.N. peacekeepers present.40

David Rohde, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist with the Christian Science Monitor, delivered a stinging critique of the U.N.'s handling of Srebrenica:

The international community partially disarmed thousands of men, promised them they would be safeguarded and then delivered them to their sworn enemies. Srebrenica was not simply a case of the international community standing by as a far-off atrocity was committed. The actions of the international community encouraged, aided, and emboldened the executioners... The fall of Srebrenica did not have to happen. There is no need for thousands of skeletons to be strewn across eastern Bosnia.41

This year marked the 12th anniversary of an enormous U.N. failure: the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.42 An estimated 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 100 days in a systematic government-sponsored slaughter.43 Except for a token number of U.N. peacekeeping troops sent, inaction largely ruled the day at the U.N. as Rwanda was turned into a killing field.

The Rwandan genocide occurred on the heels of the U.N.-ordered mission in Somalia the year before that left 18 American Rangers and 312 Somali dead.44 Remembering images of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu to cheering mobs, President Bill Clinton was reluctant to send American troops or supplies to Rwanda to stop the genocide.45 Moreover, then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali says in a PBS documentary that he requested additional forces but "nobody wanted to send troops."46

Perhaps only 5,000 soldiers were needed, according to Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander of the United Nations Mission to Rwanda.47 Yet the Security Council rejected Dallaire's plan for a determined military presence and ordered him not to intervene in the conflict.48 After ten Belgian peacekeeping soldiers were ambushed and butchered, Belgium withdrew its roughly 2,500 troops.49 Five weeks into the genocide, the 5,000 U.N. (mainly African) troops and 50 U.S. armored personnel carriers eventually authorized by the U.N. were of little consequence. The death toll had already counted over 300,000 Rwandans, and the slaughter continued for another eight weeks.50

Sex Scandals

Another U.N. scandal involves allegations of sexual misconduct. There have been 221 investigations of sexual misconduct by U.N. civilian and military peacekeepers from February 2003 to October 2005.51 A 2002 classified U.N. report characterized the problem of sexual misconduct in West African nations by U.N. personnel and representatives as "widespread," with evidence of pedophilia, prostitution and rape at gunpoint. Although allegations of sexual abuse stretch back to U.N. peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea,52 allegations of sexual misconduct doubled from 2003 to 2004.53 Some incidents include:

* In December 2004, a French U.N. logistics expert in the Democratic Republic of Congo was arrested for making pornographic videos with young girls. When police arrested the man, they found a 12-year-old-girl he was allegedly about to rape as well as some 50 photographs in his home. In May 2005, four Nepalese soldiers flew home from the Congo to face charges of sexual abuse stemming from 2003.54

* According to the London Times, two Russian U.N. peacekeeping pilots based in Mbandaka, a city in the western part of Congo, allegedly taped sex sessions with minors and paid them with jars of mayonnaise and jam. The men accused have since fled to Russia.55

* A Moroccan peacekeeping unit in Kisangani, a city in the northern part of Congo, allegedly hid one soldier accused of rape in its barracks for a year. Moreover, two U.N. officials - one from Canada and the other from Ukraine - left the country after it was alleged that they had impregnated local women.56

* There are 68 allegations of sexual abuse involving U.N. personnel in the town of Bunia alone, which is in northeast Congo,57 where U.N. peacekeepers have been stationed since May 2003.58 According to Joseph Loconte, the United Nations Children's Fund (popularly known as UNICEF) treated some 2,000 victims of sexual violence there over a period of just several months around January 2005.59

Although troops and resources for U.N. peacekeeping operations are member-state provided, a case can be made that questionable U.N. management policies may contribute to the ongoing abuse. For instance, despite the reported allegations of sexual abuse involving U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.N. still provides free condoms to peacekeepers stationed there because of the prevalence of AIDS.60 This curious policy is analogous to providing drug abusers with free needles, and it could encourage more abuse.

Furthermore, U.N. rules only apply to U.N. officials and, therefore, do not apply to military personnel who are under the jurisdiction of their own government's laws.61 As Sarah Martin of Refugees International writes, "If a soldier is found guilty [of abuse], that person is sent back to his country for discipline. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for victims and their families to determine what, if any, actions have been taken."62

Moreover, the Washington Post reported on a confidential U.N. report that raises concerns of the effectiveness and credibility of U.N. investigations into peacekeeper sexual abuse.63 The U.N. report reveals that a Moroccan peacekeeping contingent stationed in the town of Bunia allegedly intimidated a U.N. informant investigating child prostitution and rape. In addition to the peacekeepers from Morocco, the Post says peacekeepers from Pakistan and possibly Tunisia "were reported to have paid, or attempted to pay, witnesses to change their testimony" into cases of alleged abuse.64

Only recently in 2004 did Secretary General Kofi Annan admit that refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo had been sexually abused or exploited by U.N. peacekeepers stationed there since 1999. "I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place. This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it," said Annan.65 Whether he is serious about taking action remains to be seen.



Reform Suggestions

Correcting the underlying culture of abuse will be necessary if the U.N. is to become a more accountable and effective organization for advancing American interests. Several suggested reforms that are on target include establishing an independent oversight - "watchdog" - body outside the U.N. bureaucracy and removing diplomatic immunity for U.N. staff accused of criminal conduct.66 These would be used as an enforcement mechanism to punish abuse. An enforcement body not tied to the U.N.'s "culture of inaction," as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has charged,67 would present a powerful avenue at which to address potential problem areas at the onset - and before they mature into international scandal.

However, because such reforms cut against established U.N. structures, it might be difficult to receive widespread support for them within the U.N. Perhaps more viable solutions are found at the national level. One proposed by The Heritage Foundation's Brett Schaefer is for Congress to tie U.S. funding for the Human Rights Council to its effectiveness.68 Congress could bear this performance in mind when determining future appropriations and, if necessary, limit such funding. Cutting off funding may be the only way the U.S. can compel the U.N. to take reform seriously.

There is no shortage of reforms to the U.N. that many American citizens would be justified in demanding. Thus far U.N. reform has been mixed at best. The United States has successfully pushed the U.N. to agree to the creation of an Ethics Office, establish stronger whistleblower protections and require an independent financial auditing and oversight system.69 However, the U.N.'s recent replacement of the Commission on Human Rights with the new Human Rights Council is little more than a Potemkin reform. Instead of adopting explicit human rights criteria for Council membership, the U.N. drafted regulations that only urge the consideration of the records of candidate countries. Furthermore, countries may only be excluded from membership on the Council with the approval of two-thirds of the General Assembly, thus providing no guarantee of excluding countries with deplorable human rights records.70 If future reform efforts follow the path of the Human Rights Council, then the U.N. will remain a scandal-plagued institution.



Conclusion

In October 1945, 51 nations signed the U.N. Charter. As the preamble to the Charter describes, among the purposes of the U.N. are "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress."71

It is understandable that such ambitious goals might be difficult to achieve, but there can be no excuse for the failure of the U.N. as an institution to itself emulate the values of its own Charter. Financial scandals, sex scandals and human rights abuses increasingly are synonymous with "United Nations." Even Kofi Annan admits: "Unless we [the U.N.] re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself."72

Annan's words may be prophetic. For the U.N. to work towards achieving its original mission, it must move to address the corruption that presently plagues the organization. The many scandals feed an image of the U.N. as a body that is incapable of advancing its founding goals. This image bereft of any moral authority justifiably weakens support for the U.N. among the American public.


# # #


Ryan Balis is a policy analyst for The National Center for Public Policy Research. He can be reached at rbalis@nationalcenter.org.

So based on elvislives & my posts it sounds an awful lot like the human condition. Depending on where you focus you will either see the good the UN has done or the bad. In either case it reflects my general opinion that the UN is nothing more nor nothing less than a refection of the current human condition.

Like all things from the individual to the collective we are a mixed bag of good & bad. in the end it's to the degree that it leans within an individual or a collective that indicates it's true intentions.

From everything I have seen the UN does more good than bad & is honest enough with itself to say & work at improving itself.

I think the rest is just biased indignation & blaming.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

pretty well said, I would only add that its an expensive reflection of the human condition and everyone will have to decide if the juice is worth the squezing

>>>Seems to me the UN sent troops and equipment to Gulf War I. Also seems to me that the UN is attempting to stop the spread of US fascism and militarism. I could go on, but that's probably enough "good" for now.

But let's face it. The UN is ALWAYS going to take shit from certain American toadies for not adopting the neoconservative line on Israel. If the UN would only stop issuing all those tedious resolutions about Israel's treatment of Palestinians and its non-disclosure of its nuke program, everything would be just hunky-dory.

George, is that what you think the US issue with the UN is?

Top 10 UN Slogans

1.If an impotent, bloated bureaucracy can't solve it, it's best left to fester

2.You can't spell unethical without UN

3. Genocidal Dictators beware our non-binding resolutions

4. Bringing peace to our world, actual results may vary

5. Tomorrows corruption today

6. Raising pointless squabbling to an art form

7. We take bribes so you don't have to

8. If trouble arises, we'll be nearby, doing nothing.

9. If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America

10. Try our world famous cheesy fries

__________________
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.

ok lets let one of the other countries build a building for the un and foot most of the damn bill and then we will see how baluable the un is. Like many things it served its purpose and is now corrupt and usless so we should just back out and save the american people some money.

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

Well as said but both Elivs and Crow there are lots of things are going and well and bad for the UN. I personaly think that it has out lived its usefulness.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Go Sooners

I just saw where the VAST majority of U.N. troops are from India, and Pakistan. I really don't know if I am ready to trust my life, or the life of my Country to people who have never taken a crap on a flush toilet.

__________________
Standing on the corner,
Suitcase in my hand,
Jack is in his corset and Jane is in her vest,
And me, I'm in a Rock & Roll band.

It has outlived itsusefulness and its welcome. Move it to Venezuela and let Hugo foot the bill for a while. I'm sure the U.S. could do something more worthwhile with the land and the building. After we've moved the UN out, let's go to France and bring home our fallen heroes of Normandy.

__________________
Most of the world's crises can be tracked back to the fact that WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS.
---------------------------------------------------
Without women, money would have no meaning......Aristotle Onassis.