I recently had a piece published on the UN’s Human Rights Council, who are up to the old tricks of the organization they were meant to replace, which ended with:

The current concern about the Human Rights Council is just another symptom of this flaw in the UN. Until effective reform at the UN is introduced, including discriminatory views on the human rights standards of its constituent nations, the UN will continue to disappoint those who wish to see the spread of universal human rights.

Norman Geras today makes the point that criticism of the UN is often seen as being critical of the concept of the UN:

There are some - of a waggish disposition - who allege that if you criticize the UN (or any other body with an honoured place in the Book of Good Institutions) this must mean that you’re against it. The thing to do with allegations of this kind is to laugh at them. As it has been said before, that Human Rights Council is in need of reform.

The most recent failure of the UN to live up to its own noble founding concepts is this:

For the past eleven years the organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing the 57 Islamic States, has been tightening its grip on the throat of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yesterday, 28 March 2008, they finally killed it.

With the support of their allies including China, Russia and Cuba (none well-known for their defence of human rights) the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression that has turned the entire concept on its head. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression will now be required to report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran.

Many of those who criticize the UN are not criticizing what the UN set out to be, but what it has become. It is a failure on its own terms in many, but not all, areas. It should be viewed for what it is, a venue for countries to press their varied interests, be they despots and tyrants or be they Sweden. As such it is fatally flawed when addressing issues of universal rights. Its high minded ideals are lost in clash of interests.

The UN should promote human rights for the benefit of humanity, not restrict them or stand by and see people destroyed. Those fetishists who view it as the supreme standard setter for what is right and wrong ain’t polishing their shoes with Shinola.